# Was Darwin Wrong?



## This_person

*Was Darwin Wrong?​*​
Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?


----------



## wxtornado

Is this the same thing that was in the Nov 2004 issue of Nat'l Geographic?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.
> 
> This is Science, an scientific theory at work.  You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid.  In other words you have to be objective.
> 
> Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer.


Once again, please provide me the repeatable, peer reviewed test that demonstrates all of life that currently exists or ever did exist on this planet came from a single source of life (who's origin is completely conjecture to begin with).

Once that test comes in, this will be science.  Until then, it's as much religion as Genesis.  Pure conjecture, speculation, with it's main source of information coming from "well, we're here aren't we".


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Is this the same thing that was in the Nov 2004 issue of Nat'l Geographic?


I don't know.


----------



## Nonno

*The thing that made the things...................*


----------



## aps45819

This_person said:


> was Darwin wrong?



 About what?

 He observed and reported that species developed traits that helped them survive in their particular enviroment and called it the process of "natural selection".

 Pretty sure he was correct.


----------



## Beta84

obviously evolution didn't happen.  Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now.  they didn't evolve into humans.  humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff.  geez this guy was good


----------



## OoberBoober

Beta84 said:


> obviously evolution didn't happen.  Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now.  they didn't evolve into humans.  humans were always here.
> 
> although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff.  geez this guy was good



Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.


----------



## This_person

aps45819 said:


> About what?
> 
> He observed and reported that species developed traits that helped them survive in their particular enviroment and called it the process of "natural selection".
> 
> Pretty sure he was correct.


What you've just described is not Darwin's theory.

If the animal spontaneously develops the trait due to environmental conditions, that's a lot closer to Lamarck, not Darwin.

Darwin said that there are natural mutations, deformities in creatures, and those deformed offspring - that are all alike, mind you - would flourish if the deformity was advantageous, and reproduce almost exclusively together; while the same animal without the deformities would either flourish elsewhere or would die out because they didn't get the deformity.  Thus, nature would select what survived and what didn't.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> the vestigial eyes, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution.


I agree, that's the proof of evolution:  "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there.  


> Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?


So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened?  THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?





> If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.


Then, please, explain the source of the universe.  I'll wait.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.
> 
> This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect.  As your own thread states Science is willing to believe Darwin was wrong, can you say the same?


Yes, I can.

Can you explain the source of the universe without there being something beyond the universe?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I've already stated that i believe the Universe always was.


Then you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics, nor the Big Bang theory?


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.



They fake it because they are anti-religious heathens.

I like it how people ignore the facts when they argue whether or not Darwin is wrong and instead focus on everything that's missing.




This_person said:


> I agree, that's the proof of evolution:  "It looks like it must have happened".
> 
> Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there.  So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened?  THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe.  I'll wait.



It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution.  That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.

Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation.  Who knows?  That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another.  Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> *I agree, that's the proof of evolution:  "It looks like it must have happened".*
> 
> Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there.  So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened?  THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe.  I'll wait.





> sci⋅ence  [sahy-uhns]  Show IPA
> –noun
> 1.	a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
> *2.	systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.*
> 3.	any of the branches of natural or physical science.
> 4.	systematized knowledge in general.
> 5.	knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
> 6.	a particular branch of knowledge.
> 7.	skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.



You're right science based on observation is stupid.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Nucklesack said:


> If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.
> This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect.


Your lack of faith does NOT change the truth. There is nothing that God isn't invovled in. Even changes within a species is controlled by God. You just refuse to see it.  


Nucklesack said:


> I've already stated that i believe the Universe always was.


You're allowed to be wrong...


Nucklesack said:


> Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.


By the same token: not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the current Biblical facts cannot...


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution.  That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.


While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID _does _require thought, and _does_ incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?





> Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation.  Who knows?  That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another.  Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.


Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> How about something small?  Technological advancement is an example of evolution.


If by that you mean knowledge grows from the previous set of knowledge, I would agree.

If you think that technological advancement is due to genetic defects causing humans to be smarter, and those with the specific defect that happens accidentally reproducing with one another to the exclusion of those who do not utilize the technological advancements, such that those who understand and utilize them prosper and those that do not die off, you're talking natural selection a la Darwin.

Is that what you mean?





> Does ID explain to you where God came from? Who created God? What is he made of?


Nope. Doesn't attempt to.





> When questioned in this context it almost seems as absurd as The Big Bang.


So, you believe Einstien was wrong when he declared the universe was NOT a timeless thing, and that all of the research into an expanding universe is bunk?  Or, are we expanding endlessly, because we've always been here (not humans, the universe)?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID _does _require thought, and _does_ incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.


False. There is no sound scientific thought process behind ID.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID _does _require thought, and _does_ incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.
> 
> Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.



ID may require thought for some who choose to think and question, but it is also the easy way out for many.  It's basically the replacement for Creationism so they can try to put religion into mainstream science.  There's no way to test the theories so it's not science.  Just an explanation.

But again, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that may eventually be discovered, or that may never be discovered.  Making the assertion that if there is no explanation it must be God's work is a cop-out.  In the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before that), so much information has been discovered that had previously been unknown.  Who's to say we aren't going to continue learning more and achieve more answers?


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Then, please, explain the source of the universe.  I'll wait.



Please explain the source of God.  I'll wait too, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> While one (2nd law) is typically used as proof of (The Catholic Church's theory of) the Big Bang, the 2nd law is not mutually exclusive.  It helps define the Church's theory but it also is valid on its own.
> 
> Its interesting this is a theory you support, wouldnt be religious bias would it?


We've had this discussion before.  The priest who determined the theory wasn't a practicing priest, but a college professor.  He specifically wrote the Pope asking him to stop suggesting the theory be used as a religious point, because that was never his intent.  He had his theory peer reviewed, and Einstein eventually even came around to the proof being about as close as you can get to actual scientific proof without having been there.  Further evidence that supports the theory continues to emerge.

While it may be modified slightly, the concept is pretty much a given.  It's rare to hear someone - atheist, theist, scientist, etc - pose any valid argument against the general concept.





> Expansion (the opposite of entropy) and a beginning are 2 different things.  The second law of thermodynamics posits that eventually there is a complete dispersal of energy (an end), i posit otherwise.


And, your theory would be based on.......?

Because, if the generally established and accepted scientific law (not theory) of thermodynamics doesn't work for you, I'd love to hear what does.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> ID may require thought for some who choose to think and question, but it is also the easy way out for many.  It's basically the replacement for Creationism so they can try to put religion into mainstream science.  There's no way to test the theories so it's not science.  Just an explanation.
> 
> But again, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that may eventually be discovered, or that may never be discovered.  Making the assertion that if there is no explanation it must be God's work is a cop-out.  In the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before that), so much information has been discovered that had previously been unknown.  Who's to say we aren't going to continue learning more and achieve more answers?


I suspect we will learn more and more.  And, I suspect it will continue to lend credence to the theory that our universe was designed, not happenstance.  That life was established on purpose, not as a cosmic accident.

ID doesn't suggest to stop looking for the source.

Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory.  Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?

Ever see the test which is repeated and peer reviewed that takes that single cell of life and turns it into all of the different forms of life that now exist, and have ever existed on this planet (it's estimated that far less than 10% of all species of life that ever existed currently exist)?

When you show me that one, I'll say evolution and abiogenesis are science.  Until then, they're just another form of religion.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Please explain the source of God.  I'll wait too, but I won't hold my breath.


I can do that easily - I haven't the first foggiest clue, other than to suggest that He comes from something other than our known universe.

Can YOU establish the source of stuff which makes up our universe without there being something outside of our known universe?  If not, your religion is not better than mine from a scientific point of view.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory.  Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?



Not yet, but it is on the way.
NASA - Volcanoes May Have Provided Sparks and Chemistry for First Life


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Not yet, but it is on the way.
> NASA - Volcanoes May Have Provided Sparks and Chemistry for First Life


So, they can establish the exact conditions of Earth at the time life was first formed, even though we don't know what those condidtions were nor when it happened?

Good luck with that.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> So, they can establish the exact conditions of Earth at the time life was first formed, even though we don't know what those condidtions were nor when it happened?
> 
> Good luck with that.



A better explanation than a magician.

It is actually based on science, observation and experimentation.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> A better explanation than a magician.
> 
> It is actually based on science, observation and experimentation.


Just without a known starting point.  Making any conclusion immediately invalid.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Just without a known starting point.  Making any conclusion immediately invalid.



So you are saying that science that is not fully 100% explained is immediately invalid? You might want to go ahead and go to heaven, because we still cannot fully explain the make up of atoms. I guess that means computers are invalid because they use electrons.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> So you are saying that science that is not fully 100% explained is immediately invalid? You might want to go ahead and go to heaven, because we still cannot fully explain the make up of atoms. I guess that means computers are invalid because they use electrons.


You're mistaking usefulness for validity.

You're also mistaking the science behind atomic theory and the science behind "we're going to call the results valid even though we can't justify the applicability".  See, there's a difference between being 100% explained, and starting from a known starting point and assuming something else may have had a similar starting point.

You have a closed mind as to what may have happened, and therefore you cannot consider any other thought.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> You're mistaking usefulness for validity.
> 
> *You're also mistaking the science behind atomic theory and the science behind "we're going to call the results valid even though we can't justify the applicability".  See, there's a difference between being 100% explained, and starting from a known starting point and assuming something else may have had a similar starting point.*
> 
> You have a closed mind as to what may have happened, and therefore you cannot consider any other thought.



So you're now saying that figuring out, through experimentation, how to create Amino Acids, aka "The building blocks of life", naturally does not have applicability to how life started on earth?

I think the starting point you are looking for is scientifically life it self, that seems like a pretty good starting point to me.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> So you're now saying that figuring out, through experimentation, how to create Amino Acids, aka "The building blocks of life", naturally does not have applicability to how life started on earth?
> 
> I think the starting point you are looking for is scientifically life it self, that seems like a pretty good starting point to me.


If you're trying just to determine how it _could_ happen, sure.

If you're trying to prove how it _did_ happen, you'd have to know, and be able to establish, the conditions that existed at the time.

Let me explain what I mean by that...  We know that IVF can be used to impregnate someone.  However, using IVF to impregnate a woman does not prove that the first pregnancy was via IVF.

Knowing how something _could_ happen proves nothing regarding how it _did_ happen.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> If you're trying just to determine how it _could_ happen, sure.
> 
> If you're trying to prove how it _did_ happen, you'd have to know, and be able to establish, the conditions that existed at the time.
> 
> Let me explain what I mean by that...  We know that IVF can be used to impregnate someone.  However, using IVF to impregnate a woman does not prove that the first pregnancy was via IVF.
> 
> Knowing how something _could_ happen proves nothing regarding how it _did_ happen.



You better get cracking on a time machine then.


----------



## OoberBoober

Your honor, I know my finger prints are on the gun that shot my wife... But thats just an option of how it could have happened. I bet God put my finger prints on there and shot that #####.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> OoberBoober said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better get cracking on a time machine then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your honor, I know my finger prints are on the gun that shot my wife... But thats just an option of how it could have happened. I bet God put my finger prints on there and shot that #####.
Click to expand...

Your attempt at ridicule doesn't change the fact.  A courtroom is not a science lab.  A verdict is not a proof of guilt/innocence.

I firmly believe in our scientific capabilities to one day be able to establish what the actual facts are/were.

You're welcome to assume that we already know, without the facts.  I'll bet you think cops act stupidly when you don't know what happened there, either.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> More examples :
> 
> The Okapi
> How about the ancestors of Whales having legs
> How aboout Dolphins being born with vestigial legs
> How about the Hoatzin (a bird) having fingers on its wings
> 
> Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.


I hear bats are birds because they fly like other birds.

I'll bet it's that same knowledge that shows whale ancestors having legs.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Does ID allow itself to be proven incorrect?


Didn't I answer this before?

Yes, it does.  Like any other theory, it can be disproven.





> One of the important elements of a theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.


Well, we've had fossils out of order, and we've had huge gaps in fossils, and we have no direct connection in many fossils - just the conjecture that they're related.

Yet, people don't see that as evolution disproven.

Demonstrate the conditions that existed pre-universe for the universe to come to existence (or, in your case, disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics), and set a repeatable test where the universe comes into existence from nothingness, and you will have disproven ID as a universe creation.  Establish as an accepted given the status of the earth at the time (whenever it was) that life first existed, and then repeat that test to create all forms of life and you will have simultaneously proven abiogenesis, evolution, and that ID is wrong.

Barring that, you have two competing religions.





> Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What is ignored is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.


Well, I certainly agree with this micro-evolution.

However, it does take more than that to prove that evolution of humans came about in this manner.  You'd have to be able to demonstrate a repeated increase in both the complexity (say from an amoeba to a human) while simultaneously demonstrating diversity in lifeform (say, the trains of evolution from that theoretical initial DNA strand that could possibly result in both a human and a ficus, or, why more than one strand occurred).  

In other words, I agree that it works on a micro level.  I just disagree that it works on a macro level.





> Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.


So was the overwhelming belief in proof that the ceolacanth was extinct for millions of years.

Whenever you start a "proof" with the sentence "let's assume....", you lost your proof.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Do you really think you'd get away with that?  His full title was Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, i'm pretty sure they are pretty specific whom they bestow that title to.  Especially since he was ordained in 1923 (his Catholic Approved theory of the Big Bang came about in 1927, 4 years after he became a priest).


When he was a physics and astronomy professor.  Not acting as a priest.

Not only did I think I would get away with it, it remains true!  


> And? Its still a theory that was approved by the Catholic Church as it parrallels Genesis.


OMG - Science and "the church" agree on something!!!!  It must be wrong!!!!!!!!!





> Couldnt find anythign where he tried to get the Pope to stop using his Catholic Church approved theory


His theory was science approved, which is more important to it's validity than whether the pope liked it or not.

However, he didn't care for the Pope talking about it in religious fashions





> Russels Teapot, just as sound as Genesis.  ID is not a scientific theory, it would be nice if you'd stop trying to equate it as such.


Apparently the Big Bang fits Russel's Teapot as well?





> Your misunderstanding of the Second law of Thermodynamics is not my burden.  Just because the Second Law benefits or supports the Big Bang theory, it (the Second Law) is still valid without the Big Bang.


So, what is your theory that would tend to bring the entropy back down in an "infinite time" universe?  If the universe existed an infinite time before us, all of the energy would be homogonously distributed, and entropy would be at an extreme high.  It's not, therefore the universe has not been around infinitely.

It's really very simple.  Unless you're smarter than Einstien, Hubble, Hawkings, pretty much all of the known giants of science.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I suspect we will learn more and more.  And, I suspect it will continue to lend credence to the theory that our universe was designed, not happenstance.  That life was established on purpose, not as a cosmic accident.
> 
> ID doesn't suggest to stop looking for the source.
> 
> Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory.  Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?
> 
> *Ever see the test which is repeated and peer reviewed that takes that single cell of life and turns it into all of the different forms of life that now exist, and have ever existed on this planet* (it's estimated that far less than 10% of all species of life that ever existed currently exist)?
> 
> When you show me that one, I'll say evolution and abiogenesis are science.  Until then, they're just another form of religion.



Life slowly evolved over millions, or even billions, of years.  I don't think there is any test that can demonstrate all of the evolutions that took place.  It's not possible.

You know what's interesting though?  You seem to be one of those "prove it to me" scientific types, at least with your comments here.  Yet instead of looking for the science behind it, you simply believe that anything you can't understand the meaning of was obviously God's work.  I really can't fathom how you care that much about proof, yet put so much faith into something that can't possibly be proven.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models.


Yet, you reject out of hand one theory because you can't divise a test that would satisfy you of its proof.

What does that sound like to you?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That shows your Bible is fallible.  Your refusual to accepts the possibility of its falsibility shows your belief is not a Scientific Theory.


And, yet, I fully  accept it could be false.  And have said so.  

I don't think it is, but I've repeatedly stated it could be.





> I'll take that bet.  One is from a Jewish guy who is supposedly the son of God yet doesnt know Bats arent Birds, that Rabbits dont chew their Cud, that Mustard seeds werent the smallest known.
> 
> The other is proof of Evolution.


Bats aren't birds, as defined by whom?  When?

Proof how?  Do we have each successive generation all in a line, or do we assume something about those feeted whales and their relation with non-footed whales?

whenever you start your proof with, "well, we can assume", it's not proof.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Life slowly evolved over millions, or even billions, of years.  I don't think there is any test that can demonstrate all of the evolutions that took place.  It's not possible.
> 
> You know what's interesting though?  You seem to be one of those "prove it to me" scientific types, at least with your comments here.  Yet instead of looking for the science behind it, you simply believe that anything you can't understand the meaning of was obviously God's work.  I really can't fathom how you care that much about proof, yet put so much faith into something that can't possibly be proven.


My point is that I believe, and I have no proof.  My ID belief is no less scientifically valid than evolution.  Neither can be proven, nor directly disproven.

They're both a religion of sorts, equal to one another in a scientific scale.  But, one gets scientific cred, and the other does not.  That is wrong, and should remain wrong in any scientist's mind.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> My point is that I believe, and I have no proof.  My ID belief is no less scientifically valid than evolution.  Neither can be proven, nor directly disproven.
> 
> They're both a religion of sorts, equal to one another in a scientific scale.  But, one gets scientific cred, and the other does not.  That is wrong, and should remain wrong in any scientist's mind.



there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution.  countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old.  how can you say that?


----------



## PsyOps

Beta84 said:


> there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution.  countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old.  how can you say that?



There is a reason they call something a theory:



> A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
> 
> 
> 1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
> 
> 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.



Theory is NOT proven fact.  It depends on certain facts to come to an assertion that attempts to connect the dots.  I’m one that believes evolution, to a certain degree, does exist.  I’m one to accept the possibility that we evolved from a primate-type species.  I’m willing to accept there was a big bang and all the events occurred in between then and now.  But it leaves unanswered as to how anything spontaneous can result in life.  Science does answer where all that stuff from the big bang came from.  It does not explain what came before the big bang. 

The end result is belief.  I believe God created everything.  I believe set things in motion and ideally ensured everything pieced together in such a fashion that resulted in life.  I can no more prove what happened billions of years than you can through science.  You can only guess.  Theory leaves you with that... guessing.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution.  countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old.  how can you say that?



because there isn't any testability to those things being linked together.  That's an assumption, based on the assumption of macro evolution


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> *Was Darwin Wrong?​*​
> Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?



Evolution,  abiogenesis  and beginning of the universe, there different subjects.
Subject of this thread:  evolution, vs. development of life through the actions of an Intelligent Designer. Regardless, the universe exists, life on earth exists, how these things happened are beside the point. Development of life on earth is the subject.

Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this  reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.

No scientific study contradicts evolution.
There have been transitional ‘missing links’ of various species discovered to support evolution.
There are also computer models which can be considered material evidence or a sort (arguably) .

The nature of evolution, occurring over hundreds of millions of years, make it virtually impossible to provide concrete convincing evidence to satisfy every mind, however most minds that study such things are convinced. There seems to be no doubt that evolution CAN explain all life form changes between a one celled living thing and all of the life on earth today.

Does this mean that science can demonstrate  Aliens do not visit earth from time to time and introduce new life forms? No.

Does this mean that science can demonstrate that some Intelligent Designer, divine or extraterrestrial does not make modifications to life forms? No.

Does this show that external causes are not necessary to explain all changes? Absolutely.


----------



## hotcoffee

I often wondered....  If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design....  why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?

After all... *God is God*!  He knows all and He has controll of time.  He knows what changes the planet will go through.  Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?

After All.... What other purpose would time have than to measure the way conditions evolv?


----------



## BeHereNow

hotcoffee said:


> I often wondered....  If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design....  why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?
> 
> After all... *God is God*!  He knows all and He has controll of time.  He knows what changes the planet will go through.  Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?
> 
> After All.... What other purpose would time have than to measure the way conditions evolv?



'Time', have a purpose?
Big assumption.

Purpose implies a creator.

~ ~ ~

On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.

Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.

Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.


----------



## Beta84

PsyOps said:


> Theory is NOT proven fact.



Correct.  But you're too focused on Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" and consider evolution to be purely theory.  Back when Darwin made the observation, it was pretty much a theory as far as I'm aware.  Over time, it has evolved to the point where evolution is considered both fact AND theory, kind of like gravity has factual and theoretical elements.  Research has been done and factual data has been discovered to support evolution.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ItalianScallion

hotcoffee said:


> I often wondered....  If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design....  why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?
> After all... *God is God*!  He knows all and He has controll of time.  He knows what changes the planet will go through.  Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?


You must remember that you're dealing with some folks here who do not believe in God.
The world is on the highway to Hell and people are wasting time and money trying to prove evolution or disprove ID. I can accept the fact that some species change or evolve over time but I cannot accept the fact that God has nothing to do with it. 
I can think of hundreds of better things to use billions of dollars on, other than the space program. I'm ok with satellites and the like, but most of the rest of it....a waste. 
This is what happens when people won't acknowledge the Book of absolute truth. It simplifies life and saves big bucks.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> You must remember that you're dealing with some folks here who do not believe in God.
> The world is on the highway to Hell and people are wasting time and money trying to prove evolution or disprove ID. I can accept the fact that some species change or evolve over time but I cannot accept the fact that God has nothing to do with it.
> I can think of hundreds of better things to use billions of dollars on, other than the space program. I'm ok with satellites and the like, but most of the rest of it....a waste.
> This is what happens when people won't acknowledge the Book of absolute truth. *It simplifies life and saves big bucks*.



thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their  "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god


so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know


----------



## foodcritic

BeHereNow said:


> Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this  reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which discipline(s) of science are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No scientific study contradicts evolution.
> There have been transitional ‘missing links’ of various species discovered to support evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide your examples.....
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this  reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.


Let me ask you this; if there were only two humans left on earth, would they have enough diversity in their DNA to support recreating an entire human population like we have today?

So, if those two couldn't do that, how was there enough diversity in a single DNA strand that miraculously formed in a pond somewhere (presumably) to produce all the diversity of life that exists today and the other 90% of life that has already gone extinct as well?

Logic suggests that it doesn't add up as a likely probability.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their  "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god
> 
> 
> so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know


Absolutely false.

There is no Biblical reason to presume that there aren't hundreds of billions of other planets teeming with life.  It wouldn't change a single thing in the Bible, nor how a Christian would perceive it.


----------



## Im_Me

BeHereNow said:


> 'Time', have a purpose?
> Big assumption.
> 
> Purpose implies a creator.
> 
> ~ ~ ~
> 
> On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.
> 
> Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.
> 
> Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.



Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake.  Next week I'm making a pie.  Each perfection yet each different.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their  "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god
> so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know


Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be. 
ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth??? 


This_person said:


> Absolutely false.
> There is no Biblical reason to presume that there aren't hundreds of billions of other planets teeming with life.  It wouldn't change a single thing in the Bible, nor how a Christian would perceive it.


Exactly! 


Im_Me said:


> Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake.  Next week I'm making a pie.  Each perfection yet each different.


Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...)


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> Let me ask you this; if there were only two humans left on earth, would they have enough diversity in their DNA to support recreating an entire human population like we have today?
> 
> So, if those two couldn't do that, how was there enough diversity in a single DNA strand that miraculously formed in a pond somewhere (presumably) to produce all the diversity of life that exists today and the other 90% of life that has already gone extinct as well?
> 
> Logic suggests that it doesn't add up as a likely probability.


A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form. 
Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA. That would be according to the theory of evolution.

The Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as a human. Do you think that might have the capabilities of developing into another intelligent life form, given a few million or hundreds of millions of years?
Logic suggests that it would.
As to how much it would resemble human is another matter.

Evolution says if the human species became extinct, a different species would take it's place. No scientist expects an extinct species to be reformed by evolution. A species with only two surviving members is as good as extinct in its present form. Two humans of oppsite sex could continue the human race, but in a different form than we have today. The potential is there to repeat all of the variations we now have, but that is improbable. Improbable is not impossible.
An unlikely probability, is still possible.

If humans became extinct, chimpanzies have the capabilities of becoming much more human like, especially intellectually.

Two lone humans may not be able to repopulate the earth with more humans like we have today, but other species have the capability to repopulate the earth with new and improved versions of themselves, to occupy the niche currently held by humans.
That's the way it works.


----------



## BeHereNow

Im_Me said:


> Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake.  Next week I'm making a pie.  Each perfection yet each different.


So there is no such thing as a 'perfect cake'.
Not only that, but no one cake is any better than another, all just different.

But among yellow cakes, isn't one better than another?
Isn't there a perfect yellow cake, that a perfect baker would make the first time, and never change?
Would a perfect baker keep making yellow cakes, trying to improve them?

Most Christians accept micro-evolution, improvement of the species related to their environment through change. The species prospers because it goes thru beneficial changes, and of course some changes that are not beneficial, birth defects that would eliminate the species if present in all individuals.

Improved changes certainly suggests movement away from the less perfect to the more perfect.

No if you are suggesting that there are no improved changes within a species, I would say you must reject micro-evolution.


----------



## BeHereNow

> *ItalianScallion*
> Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be.



Well, like most things in Christianity (and life) there seems to be two schools of thought on this. 
My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us.

You and I would disagree.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be.
> ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth???
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...)



lets see, use a scientific approach and explore the universe or use an ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious people who thought they could talk to god (or were pretending they could as part of a religious con) as the only reference for truth to gain enlightement.


and the reason none of those superstitious god talking to folks didn't say anything about the posibility of life on other planets??? its because they had no clue there were other planets for there to be live on. they were not nearly as educated as the modern person about the world. that why there are many misrepresentations in the bible that are inaccurate. Like the two that were famously quoted here about the bat being a bird and the mustard seed.

IF everyone was still using "the book" as their only reference there would still be stoning in the streets and burnings at the cross instead of space stations and satilites.


----------



## hotcoffee

BeHereNow said:


> 'Time', have a purpose?
> Big assumption.
> 
> Purpose implies a creator.
> 
> ~ ~ ~
> 
> On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.
> 
> Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.
> 
> Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.



So with you... the cake is baked, the wall is built... and it is judged to be so perfect that there can never be another to tease the senses....  how dull....

In my world... time help to measure the milestones in life as well as the accomplishments in life....

You must be a box cake kind of "perfect" baker....  When I bake I choose the ingredients based on what they will bring to the finished product.

I have one recipe [in the cookbook I am working on ] that uses pinto beans as a binder.  Another recipe uses vinegar and milk together with the other ingredients to bring a rich moistness to the batter.  

Both of these recipes need to be baked at a certain temperature.  I know that my oven heats quickly and holds it's temp very well.  My grandmother's oven was not so predictable so she would put a brick in the oven to help it hold the temp.  

I know there are a lot of people who claim to be Christians who won't even discuss evolution as a possibility.... I say that God is God and in Him anything is possible.

How would the argument change if God were a gardener rather than a baker or a bricklayer?  Just curious...


----------



## BeHereNow

> *hotcoffee*
> How would the argument change if God were a gardener rather than a baker or a bricklayer? Just curious...


Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
add:
If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.


----------



## Im_Me

BeHereNow said:


> Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
> The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
> add:
> If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
> If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.



Your premise is based on a judgement....that later life is more perfect than early life.  An amoeba is perfect.  A dinosaur is perfect...A human is perfect.  One may be more advanced than the last...but not more perfect.  

I accept that evolution of species is more logical than a simple 7 days x 24 hours Creation, but that does not mean I don't see the hand of God in it.  So that is not my point.  

I don't think God is perfecting anything....I think He is giving a changing view.  Evolution is precarious in a changing world.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...)




Hey IT. (thanks for leaving out the MeMe thing, do you want me to stop with the Uncle Bill?) If you'd ever tasted my baking you'd know I'm only making an analogy!


----------



## foodcritic

BeHereNow said:


> Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
> The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
> add:
> If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
> If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.



This is a significantly flawed analogy.  Your not God.  SO we can't assume anything on his motivation.  Your analogy is pure speculation.


----------



## foodcritic

So the earth is supposed to be 

4.5 Billion years old

All life started to evolve..Dino's ruled for

150 million years

Dino's perished 65 million years ago I am assuming so did most other life forms due to meteor collision (that's what they say).

So all of life that we know has really had only 65 millions years to "evolve".

So from 4.5 billion years till extinction no upright mammals existed.  Amazing.  If not stastistilly unbelievable.

So all of current "creation" has had 65 million years to evolve?  Amazing. 

I find it amazing that we did not exist before the Dino death.  I mean we had billions of years of evolutionary processess to work with.  And no people.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth???



have you taken my advice and read Dianetics yet?  You're pretty big on books so I think you should check that one out


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form.
> Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA. That would be according to the theory of evolution.


Actually, the formation of life has nothing to do with evolution.  Life had to exist for evolution to take place with it.





> The Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as a human. Do you think that might have the capabilities of developing into another intelligent life form, given a few million or hundreds of millions of years?
> Logic suggests that it would.


No, you're suggesting that there is enough DNA to form a human.  My question  is whether there was enough diversity to form all the humans.

Could a single DNA strand support the diversity of all life?


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> Well, like most things in Christianity (and life) there seems to be two schools of thought on this. My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
> The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us.


What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people. 
The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either. 


thatguy said:


> lets see, use a scientific approach and explore the universe or use an ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious people who thought they could talk to god (or were pretending they could as part of a religious con) as the only reference for truth to gain enlightement.
> and the reason none of those superstitious god talking to folks didn't say anything about the posibility of life on other planets??? its because they had no clue there were other planets for there to be live on. they were not nearly as educated as the modern person about the world. that why there are many misrepresentations in the bible that are inaccurate. Like the two that were famously quoted here about the bat being a bird and the mustard seed.
> IF everyone was still using "the book" as their only reference there would still be stoning in the streets and burnings at the cross instead of space stations and satilites.


"bat being a bird"??? Show me please....
You have no idea what Jesus meant by the mustard seed parable, that's REAL obvious. And you know little or nothing about the Bible. If you have no faith in God you'll have little to no understanding of what He says. 
Many Bible passages speak of other heavenly bodies so don't say "they didn't know". Some are in Genesis 1, Job 38. If God wanted them or us to know about life on other planets, He could have told us. 


Im_Me said:


> Hey IT. (thanks for leaving out the MeMe thing, do you want me to stop with the Uncle Bill?) If you'd ever tasted my baking you'd know I'm only making an analogy!


Uncle Bill is sooo not me...and I know the MeMe bothered you so I quit it. 
When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???


Beta84 said:


> have you taken my advice and read Dianetics yet?  You're pretty big on books so I think you should check that one out


I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
He said that Darwin said the same thing.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
> Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people.
> The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either.
> 
> "bat being a bird"??? Show me please....
> You have no idea what Jesus meant by the mustard seed parable, that's REAL obvious. And you know little or nothing about the Bible. If you have no faith in God you'll have little to no understanding of what He says.
> Many Bible passages speak of other heavenly bodies so don't say "they didn't know". Some are in Genesis 1, Job 38.* If God wanted them or us to know about life on other planets, He could have told us. *
> 
> Uncle Bill is sooo not me...and I know the MeMe bothered you so I quit it.
> When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???
> 
> I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
> He said that Darwin said the same thing.




thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form.
> Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA.


Okay, so the building blocks spontaneously formed, and then miraculously joined together into DNA    Much more likely, I see......


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
> open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.


The Bible continues not to be all you WANT to know, but all you NEED to know.


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> Theory is NOT proven fact.



Strawman.  Theories don't become facts.  A theory and a fact are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.  Sigh....


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Strawman.  Theories don't become facts.  A theory and a fact are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.  Sigh....


  Really?  A fact isn't stronger (higher) a rung than a theory?

I thought theories become laws (facts) when proven.  What happens to a theory once it's proven?


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
> He said that Darwin said the same thing.



You checked with him?  You have his personal line or something?  

How bout the Qu'ran?


----------



## BeHereNow

Im_Me said:


> Your premise is based on a judgement....that later life is more perfect than early life.  An amoeba is perfect.  A dinosaur is perfect...A human is perfect.  One may be more advanced than the last...but not more perfect.
> 
> I accept that evolution of species is more logical than a simple 7 days x 24 hours Creation, but that does not mean I don't see the hand of God in it.  So that is not my point.
> 
> I don't think God is perfecting anything....I think He is giving a changing view.  Evolution is precarious in a changing world.


No, later in life is not always better.

Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection. 

We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.

The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)

I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
Creating a failure is counter productive.

It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans. 
Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?

Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.


----------



## BeHereNow

ItalianScallion said:


> What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
> Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people.
> The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either.


I am telling you about a Christian movie, on a Christian network, with Christian endorsements. Your argument is with the Christians who disagree with you.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
> open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.


MANY of the guys that wrote the Bible had no idea of what God was talking about. They just wrote what He told them and some of their own experiences too. 
Moses wrote about the creation thousands of years AFTER it happened! Isaiah prophesied about the birth of Christ 700 years BEFORE it happened. Some of them "didn't have a clue" but they simply wrote what The Spirit told them. This is why I said if God wanted them/us to know about life on other planets, He COULD have told us. Not saying He would have but He could have. 


Beta84 said:


> You checked with him?  You have his personal line or something?
> How bout the Qu'ran?


Not his personal line but I just figured, since he didn't believe in the God of the Bible....you know the rest.
The Qu'ran has been proven false a number of times on here too so, what about it? 
PS: this thread is about Darwin not Hubbard...


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> Actually, the formation of life has nothing to do with evolution.  Life had to exist for evolution to take place with it.


I am the one who pointed that out, over here.



> No, you're suggesting that there is enough DNA to form a human.  My question  is whether there was enough diversity to form all the humans.
> 
> Could a single DNA strand support the diversity of all life?


Yes, and Yes.


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> Okay, so the building blocks spontaneously formed, and then miraculously joined together into DNA    Much more likely, I see......


Miracle?
I do not believ in miracles.
Given enough time, all things are possible.


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> I am telling you about a Christian movie, on a Christian network, with Christian endorsements. Your argument is with the Christians who disagree with you.


You're the one who said demons could be seen. 
Just because it's a: Christian movie, Christian network and Christian endorsed doesn't make it true. Who endorsed it if you can tell me? 
I'm just countering your statement about the Bible speaking of aliens. The Bible doesn't speak of computers or cars but they exist.


----------



## BeHereNow

ItalianScallion said:


> You're the one who said demons could be seen.
> Just because it's a: Christian movie, Christian network and Christian endorsed doesn't make it true. Who endorsed it if you can tell me?
> I'm just countering your statement about the Bible speaking of aliens. The Bible doesn't speak of computers or cars but they exist.


Here are my words:

"My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us."

"OR SO THE PROTAGONIST TELLS US."

I do not say these things, the move does.

The movie is on my DVR. I will get the details on the producer, etc.
These beliefs are common among many Christians, particularly Pentacostals and other Evangelical groups.
If you have no experience with such groups, you have lead a sheltered Christian life.

Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.

~ ~ ~ ~
When I said "you and I disagree", I did not mean we disagree with each other, I meant that we both disagree with the premise of the movie.
Read it and you will see it.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> Not his personal line but I just figured, since he didn't believe in the God of the Bible....you know the rest.
> The Qu'ran has been proven false a number of times on here too so, what about it?
> PS: this thread is about Darwin not Hubbard...



You figured, just because he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible?  So what about all the other people on these boards that seem quite happy even though they don't believe in _your_ God?  You're ignorant if you just "figure" that everyone else isn't happy.

And I'm sure plenty of people have proven various tidbits of information wrong about the bible as well.  The only difference is that this forum is primarily Christian-based, so most people would be out to prove the Qu'ran and other books wrong, while in a Muslim based area they'd probably be out to prove the Bible wrong.

The reason I again brought up the other books is because YOU brought up that book called the Bible and said the proof was right there in a book, so why go elsewhere to discover.  So when you pointed a book reference, I was just curious if you'd bothered to read any others or if you just read one book and had one faith all your life and just assumed that was absolutely correct.  Somehow I think you're one of those people that was always brought up in a specific faith and really wouldn't know _for sure_ if you're right or wrong, but you're definitely brainwashed to think that way.


----------



## Im_Me

BeHereNow said:


> 'Time', have a purpose?
> Big assumption.
> 
> Purpose implies a creator.
> 
> ~ ~ ~
> 
> On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.
> 
> Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.
> 
> Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.





BeHereNow said:


> No, later in life is not always better.
> 
> Here's how I would say it.
> The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.
> 
> We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
> This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.
> 
> The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)
> 
> I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
> Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
> Creating a failure is counter productive.
> 
> It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans.
> Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?
> 
> Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.



New spin same issue...You are still making a judgement of God's intent to prove that He does not exist as an active God.  

It is pretty obvious in a world where entropy is increasing that perfection is not the goal.  So while your position is proved by the second law of thermodynamics, your thesis is flawed by your supposition.  

The creator is perfect, the creations are perfect, even if the creatures are flawed.  Just look around you know that's true.  I believe that God teaches imperfect creatures through chaos. The story of Job is a good example.  In simple terms: Job was fearful (a big flaw) and failed to follow the command of God, he was therefore thrown into the storm and the whale (talk about chaos) to be shown the way.  In this case what you might call a failure is actually an opportunity.  

Everything (especially an obscure extinct mold) does not have to have a deep meaning to prove that there is a perfect God.  There are always missed opportunities and stuff that "just happens".  Again you have correctly observed the world, but then inferred it's meaning. 

It's probably a lot more interesting to throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what happens, though I would not presume that entertainment is God's intent.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???



I'm afraid we've lost our Libby to the politics forum.  I miss her very much. She really knows her stuff.  Haven't seen much from Starman either.


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> I do not say these things, the move does.
> The movie is on my DVR. I will get the details on the producer, etc.
> These beliefs are common among many Christians, particularly Pentacostals and other Evangelical groups.
> If you have no experience with such groups, you have lead a sheltered Christian life.
> Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.
> ~ ~ ~ ~
> When I said "you and I disagree", I did not mean we disagree with each other, I meant that we both disagree with the premise of the movie.
> Read it and you will see it. Hope this helps.


Ok; It just seemed to me that you were condoning what the movie said. 
What any group believes is of no value to me unless it squares with the Bible. My view is God's view. I could never imagine coming up with some of the things He has. 


Beta84 said:


> You figured, just because he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible?  So what about all the other people on these boards that seem quite happy even though they don't believe in _your_ God?  You're ignorant if you just "figure" that everyone else isn't happy.


Happy and correct are 2 very different things.


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> And I'm sure plenty of people have proven various tidbits of information wrong about the bible as well.  The only difference is that this forum is primarily Christian-based, so most people would be out to prove the Qu'ran and other books wrong, while in a Muslim based area they'd probably be out to prove the Bible wrong.


Why do you think "this forum is primarily Christian based"??


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> The reason I again brought up the other books is because YOU brought up that book called the Bible and said the proof was right there in a book, so why go elsewhere to discover.  So when you pointed a book reference, I was just curious if you'd bothered to read any others or if you just read one book and had one faith all your life and just assumed that was absolutely correct.  Somehow I think you're one of those people that was always brought up in a specific faith and really wouldn't know _for sure_ if you're right or wrong, but you're definitely brainwashed to think that way.


Ever seen what Hubbard believed?
_Church of Scientology: 
Started by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954 and it is a cultic group masquerading as a religion for tax exemption status. 
Their have no written doctrine of who “God” is but it is not of the Trinity or Jesus. *They let their members decide their own concepts of who he is.* 
They believe that ones own good works and good deeds to others permit them to determine their own spiritual future when they die. 
They believe in many of the Buddhist & Hindu doctrines of reincarnation.
They believe that any objects identified with supreme beings can be worshipped._
Not even close to Christianity in my estimation, so I can safely say that L Ron is hating life right about now...

About the other books; I've read these and found them internally flawed. The Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, The New World Translation. 3 strikes is enough for me...
And, finally, I was brought up Catholic but I believed only some of what they taught me. I had to get out of it because my heart wasn't in it. I still believe in the same God but without all the other man made stuff, so I wasn't really brainwashed in that respect. 


Im_Me said:


> I'm afraid we've lost our Libby to the politics forum.  I miss her very much. *She really knows her stuff.*  Haven't seen much from Starman either.


 
Starman is still posting too. 
You did not answer my question either. WOMEN!


----------



## BeHereNow

> *itallianScallion* Ok; It just seemed to me that you were condoning what the movie said.
> What any group believes is of no value to me unless it squares with the Bible. My view is God's view. I could never imagine coming up with some of the things He has.


Problem is, that every Christain believes the same thing, and they all follow the Bible as the word of God. They are at least as assured as you are, that they are right.
EVERYONE says "It's not what I say, it's want God says."

Who is right and who is wrong?
Wait, let me guess, you are right, and they are wrong.
I wonder how I knew that.


----------



## BeHereNow

Im_Me said:


> New spin same issue...You are still making a judgement of God's intent to prove that He does not exist as an active God.
> 
> It is pretty obvious in a world where entropy is increasing that perfection is not the goal.  So while your position is proved by the second law of thermodynamics, your thesis is flawed by your supposition.
> 
> The creator is perfect, the creations are perfect, even if the creatures are flawed.  Just look around you know that's true.  I believe that God teaches imperfect creatures through chaos. The story of Job is a good example.  In simple terms: Job was fearful (a big flaw) and failed to follow the command of God, he was therefore thrown into the storm and the whale (talk about chaos) to be shown the way.  In this case what you might call a failure is actually an opportunity.
> 
> Everything (especially an obscure extinct mold) does not have to have a deep meaning to prove that there is a perfect God.  There are always missed opportunities and stuff that "just happens".  Again you have correctly observed the world, but then inferred it's meaning.
> 
> It's probably a lot more interesting to throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what happens, though I would not presume that entertainment is God's intent.


Well, I'm saying he has no intent concerning the things we are speaking about. You are the one assigning intent.
You assume first of all that Gon Intervenes, and further what his intents are, to a certain degree of course. You do not claim to know the full being of God.

Assume any type of God you choose, and the proof is all around you that you are correct.

That is what all Theists do, I'm sure you would agree.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> I am the one who pointed that out, over here.


  Then why would you shortly after screw it up?





> Yes, and Yes.


Highly unlikely.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Miracle?
> I do not believ in miracles.
> Given enough time, all things are possible.


_*All*_ things?  Including a supreme being?


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Here's how I would say it.
> The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.


YOUR version of perfection.

Why would that necessarily be someone else's version of perfection?





> We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
> This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.
> 
> The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)
> 
> I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
> Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
> Creating a failure is counter productive.


But, you're defining the success or failure.  By defining the success and failure, you are assuming an intent, a purpose, a reason.  Back up, and don't assume YOU know the reason for the species longevity.  If you're not presumptuous in that way, you can be more objective.





> It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans.
> Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?


Of course we could believe that.  It could very well be that the mold actually did have something to do with the creation of mankind.

If you only know the steak, and suddenly watch a cow being butchered, but don't put the two together, you see no good reason to kill and butcher a cow.  That part of it would seem like a huge mistake.  But, the steak tastes _really_ good if you know how to grill it.  In other words, watching the process without understanding the process (but assuming things about each step anyway) can lead you far astray, in my opinion.  I don't claim to know all the steps of the process, but I can see potential steps, where as you see failures.





> Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.


Not at all.  Far too presumptuous a statement on your part!


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> Happy and correct are 2 very different things.



I agree with you, they are two different things!  But the person I'm quoting here apparently doesn't...



ItalianScallion said:


> I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now.





And I was just screwing with you on the who Dianetics thing.  You just seem to preach over and over how people refuse to listen to a book that's here on earth so why do they think searching for answers elsewhere would help them.  I merely pointed out the absurdity of your comment by saying something that was just as absurd.


----------



## Im_Me

BeHereNow said:


> Well, I'm saying he has no intent concerning the things we are speaking about. You are the one assigning intent.
> You assume first of all that Gon Intervenes, and further what his intents are, to a certain degree of course. You do not claim to know the full being of God.
> 
> Assume any type of God you choose, and the proof is all around you that you are correct.
> 
> That is what all Theists do, I'm sure you would agree.



I agree to a degree...It really comes down to the fact that faith can be supported by logic and science but it is neither science or logic.  I think I see an active and loving Creator in the same things that indicate to you that there is not one.


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> _*All*_ things?  Including a supreme being?




If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?


----------



## Beta84

capsfan78 said:


> If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?



of course not!  there is proof beyond all possibility that there is absolutely a supreme being and that it is absolutely what [insert name here] believes in.  Because naturally if we believe then we MUST be right.  

While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me.  I mean, who knows?  But when someone tells me I'm definitely wrong, when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim?  I say BS.


----------



## thatguy

Beta84 said:


> of course not!  there is proof beyond all possibility that there is absolutely a supreme being and that it is absolutely what [insert name here] believes in.  Because naturally if we believe then we MUST be right.
> 
> While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me.  I mean, who knows?  But when someone tells me I'm definitely wrong, when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim?  I say BS.



"whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god"


----------



## foodcritic

thatguy said:


> "whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god"



What is your book?  The communist manifesto?


----------



## thatguy

foodcritic said:


> What is your book?  The communist manifesto?



you are pretty dense aren't you


----------



## This_person

capsfan78 said:


> If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?


How many times do I have to answer this in one thread?  


Yes, it is certainly possible.


Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?


...did you not read his post?  

seemed like that's what he said :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> ...did you not read his post?
> 
> seemed like that's what he said :shrug:


I did read Caps post, and that's not what was said at all.

What was said was a question as to whether or not a religious person would agree the possibility they were wrong.  There wasn't even an inkling of a non-religious person accepting they may be wrong.

The question actually lends credence to the theory that evolution is like a religion - they believe without any real proof, testability, or good reason other than faith that their thought process is right.


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> Problem is, that every Christain believes the same thing, and *they all follow the Bible as the word of God.* They are at least as assured as you are, that they are right.
> EVERYONE says "It's not what I say, it's want God says."
> Who is right and who is wrong?
> Wait, let me guess, you are right, and they are wrong.
> I wonder how I knew that.


So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into. 
There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today). 


Beta84 said:


> While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me.  I mean, who knows?  But when someone tells me *I'm definitely wrong,* when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim?  I say BS.


"You're definitely wrong"....... 


thatguy said:


> "whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god"


OMG! You finally got it!!


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into.
> There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today).
> 
> "You're definitely wrong".......
> 
> OMG! You finally got it!!



what you dont get is, that is what everyone says about their book, that it is the real one, while denying the divinity of the other books. the truth is that they are all fiction===> they are all lies. none of them were written by god therefore they are all equally invalid


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.


Can you 'splain dis to me?


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I did read Caps post, and that's not what was said at all.
> 
> What was said was a question as to whether or not a religious person would agree the possibility they were wrong.  There wasn't even an inkling of a non-religious person accepting they may be wrong.
> 
> The question actually lends credence to the theory that evolution is like a religion - they believe without any real proof, testability, or good reason other than faith that their thought process is right.



he made a point to comment on a non-religious person being willing to accept that there is the possibility of a supreme being.  :shrug:

Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found.  But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was.  Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence.  But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


>


You're definitely wrong.  I am 100% sure of this and I have books as evidence.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> what you dont get is, that is what everyone says about their book, that it is the real one, while denying the divinity of the other books. the truth is that they are all fiction===> they are all lies. none of them were written by god therefore they are all equally invalid


But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case. 
This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it. 
Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth...


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> he made a point to comment on a non-religious person being willing to accept that there is the possibility of a supreme being.  :shrug:
> 
> Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found.  But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was.  Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence.  But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.


The Bible (or any other religious book) generally does not equate itself to all possible knowledge of all things.

IMO, the Bible tells you all you NEED to know about God.  Maybe not all you want to know, but all you NEED to know.  That does not mean in any way that the Bible is the complete book of all knowledge of everything.  It's not, and I dare say no reasonable Christian would ever suggest it is.  That's a gross mischaracterization of the faith.

However, in terms of what this thread turned into, I would suggest that ID (not Biblical Genesis, but ID) is what you describe as a great possibility.  If there is a designer who designed things to work the way they do, and designed a bit of evolution into how things run, that's ID.  If there is no possibility of that whatsoever, that's "close-minded".


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found.  But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was.  Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence.  But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, *that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.*


Why work so hard when someone else has done all the foot work for us?


Beta84 said:


> You're definitely wrong.  I am 100% sure of this and I have books as evidence.


Dianetics???


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case.
> This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it.
> Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth...



you are right, the koran has definately stood the test of time and has been proven the absolute truth 

so i beleive in one less book than you do, and somehow that makes me unable to determine if any are false? that is retarded. If anything i would say that it makes me MORE able to determine if the books are false because i dont have a vested interest in any.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case.
> This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it.
> Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but *only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth*...


Really?  Only one?  Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book?  Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.



This_person said:


> The Bible (or any other religious book) generally does not equate itself to all possible knowledge of all things.
> 
> IMO, the Bible tells you all you NEED to know about God.  Maybe not all you want to know, but all you NEED to know.  That does not mean in any way that the Bible is the complete book of all knowledge of everything.  It's not, and I dare say no reasonable Christian would ever suggest it is.  That's a gross mischaracterization of the faith.
> 
> However, in terms of what this thread turned into, I would suggest that ID (not Biblical Genesis, but ID) is what you describe as a great possibility.  If there is a designer who designed things to work the way they do, and designed a bit of evolution into how things run, that's ID.  If there is no possibility of that whatsoever, that's "close-minded".


I'm aware.  I don't even know if it's a NEED to know, I think it's more of a "this is what I felt like providing you with, so deal with it" type of scenario.  But a bunch of it was written by people who merely observed events, so I think it's a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

Speaking of "close-minded", check out this other guy I'm having a "discussion" with.  



ItalianScallion said:


> Why work so hard when someone else has done all the foot work for us?
> 
> Dianetics???


All the foot work?  Hardly.  Please refer to This_Person, he seems to be pretty rational in comparison to you.

If you mock Dianetics, the evil aliens in your stomach are going to explode out of you and eat your brains!!!  If not, then maybe Allah will strike you down.  If not, maybe Buddha will sit on you and make you respawn as a piece of poop.  Or that Hindu dude with his 500 hands will strangle you.  I don't know, there are plenty of possibilities.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> you are right, the koran has definately stood the test of time and has been proven the absolute truth
> so i beleive in one less book than you do, and somehow that makes me unable to determine if any are false? that is retarded. If anything i would say that it makes me MORE able to determine if the books are false because i dont have a vested interest in any.


Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...


Beta84 said:


> Really?  Only one?  Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book?  Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.


Funny guy...
People make bad choices or haven't done the necessary research on the Bible. You like books? Read "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an avowed atheist trying to disprove Christ and he ended up becoming a Christian because he couldn't. He details his research in it. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> All the foot work?  Hardly.  Please refer to This_Person, he seems to be pretty rational in comparison to you.


He made a very true statement. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about God or life but it does tell us most of what we need to know. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> If you mock Dianetics, the evil aliens in your stomach are going to explode out of you and eat your brains!!!  If not, then maybe Allah will strike you down.  If not, maybe Buddha will sit on you and make you respawn as a piece of poop.  Or that Hindu dude with his 500 hands will strangle you.  I don't know, there are plenty of possibilities.


WOW! And I thought it was my cooking that caused those stomach pains...


Nucklesack said:


> So your switching to Judaism?


Soitainly not! That would be like going back to 8 track tapes...


----------



## foodcritic

Beta84 said:


> Really?  Only one?  Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book?  Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.
> 
> .



Your argument that the Bible is false BECAUSE not everyone follows it does not prove your argument.  It is a good point but that is about it.  

_If you can't prove one to be "true" does that by default mean that none can be true?  This does not seem logical to me.  Does it to you?_

Truth does exist, if it didn't we would live in chaos, if at all.

If I say that the earth is round and you say it's flat, we both can't be right.  One of has is "closer" to the truth.  Now if I say its round we may actually realize that in fact it's not perfectly round but round to us all the same.

Why should religion be any different?


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?




I'm very open to the idea that I'm totally wrong, and there is some sort of supreme being(s).


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...



but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....


----------



## capsfan78

ItalianScallion said:


> So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into.
> There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today).



Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?

So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.

When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it.  Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem.  How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?

How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible?  How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?


----------



## lewis7lewis

*You gotta be kidding right?*



Beta84 said:


> obviously evolution didn't happen.  Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now.  they didn't evolve into humans.  humans were always here.
> 
> although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff.  geez this guy was good



Look If that's what you believe then so be  it but your Wrong!
It's a..... Fact that Plants have evolved!....that Animals have evolved..
and...the Earth has evolved and so have Humans!And let's get this
straight the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven not a book
of the Heavens!See this is where reglion is messed up your mind.


----------



## lewis7lewis

capsfan78 said:


> Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?
> 
> So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.
> 
> When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it.  Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem.  How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?
> 
> How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible?  How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?




Hey don't even try it's a waste of time talking with these people they have
tunnel vision and their set at Full Speed Ahead!Their is not even a chance that the cold hard facts will change the way they think they have been
brainwashed by Reglion that the possibility of anything else is out of bounds.


----------



## foodcritic

capsfan78 said:


> Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?
> So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The oldest was Methuslah at 969.  The best answer(s) to this are
> 1) God simply allowed for this for the purposes of re-population.
> 2) The human body was less corrupt from the results of Adam's sin and we are naturally regressing from perfection.  With out medical advancment how old would we live to be....I suspect
> In Gen 6 set's man's age at 120yrs and in Psalms
> 
> In Psalm 90 we read
> 10 The length of our days is *seventy years—
> or eighty*, if we have the strength;
> yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
> for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
> 
> 
> I find this passage amazing.  It was written at least 1500 years ago by King David.  How much incite did it take for him to see that man kind's life span would be between 70-80 yrs????.  Exactly what it is today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it.  Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem.  How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a fair question.  Without looking at any creation talking points I would speculate that it would be hard to determine the landscape of the earth pre-flood.  The flood forever changed the landscape of earth.  No one doubts a world wide flood BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible?  How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually the bible is very clear.  There are some areas of disagreement.  However Christians should not divide on issues that are not essential.  I personally think that creation is an essential point that is reiterated through out the OT and NT.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

capsfan78 said:


> I'm very open to the idea that I'm totally wrong, and there is some sort of supreme being(s).


So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.

Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.

Thank you.


----------



## Beta84

foodcritic said:


> Your argument that the Bible is false BECAUSE not everyone follows it does not prove your argument.  It is a good point but that is about it.
> 
> _If you can't prove one to be "true" does that by default mean that none can be true?  This does not seem logical to me.  Does it to you?_
> 
> Truth does exist, if it didn't we would live in chaos, if at all.
> 
> If I say that the earth is round and you say it's flat, we both can't be right.  One of has is "closer" to the truth.  Now if I say its round we may actually realize that in fact it's not perfectly round but round to us all the same.
> 
> Why should religion be any different?


I was only trying to make a point -- I wasn't saying the Bible is definitely false.  I'm saying that it's very difficult to determine what's true, what's not, and basically everything else in between.  Can we say, for certain, that certain events took place?  Even if every little piece of history was accurate within the bible, does that mean the actual supernatural events took place?  No.  Same with any other book written for the purposes of religion.  I am not saying any book is wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to prove definitively that any of them are right.

Speaking of the earth being round, didn't the Vatican strongly disagree that the earth was round for centuries?  Didn't they disagree that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries?  It's archaic.  They tell you what they want to believe based on the Bible.  They ignore science.  Religion is good for some stuff, but to listen to religion when there is science saying otherwise is just silly.



thatguy said:


> but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....


It has.  Heck, Christianity believes in that book too...it's called the Old Testament.  It's just that the New Testament changed a ton because they didn't really like the first cut 



lewis7lewis said:


> Look If that's what you believe then so be  it but your Wrong!
> It's a..... Fact that Plants have evolved!....that Animals have evolved..
> and...the Earth has evolved and so have Humans!And let's get this
> straight the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven not a book
> of the Heavens!See this is where reglion is messed up your mind.



You've already proved that you're pretty effing stupid, but to quote ME of all people when I was being completely sarcastic and mocking some people with that statement is just retarded.  Go away and let the big boys discuss.


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.
> 
> Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.
> 
> Thank you.



Of course, anything is possible.  But, by not believe 100% in one thing, I have options.  Unlike those who believe, have no options it is black and white.  I just don't work that way.


----------



## lewis7lewis

*Gee your so Smart????????????????????????????*



ItalianScallion said:


> Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...
> 
> Funny guy...
> People make bad choices or haven't done the necessary research on the Bible. You like books? Read "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an avowed atheist trying to disprove Christ and he ended up becoming a Christian because he couldn't. He details his research in it.
> 
> He made a very true statement. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about God or life but it does tell us most of what we need to know.
> 
> WOW! And I thought it was my cooking that caused those stomach pains...
> 
> Soitainly not! That would be like going back to 8 track tapes...



So What dose that prove your no Theologian I'm sure  and just
because,,, You believe in something dosn't make it So ,,,and just because
you Don't,,,dosn't mean it's not True. That goes for Reglion,UFOs,Bigfoot
and so on and so on!Look genius the Bible was written by authors
unknown,,,Fact....Storys left out of the Bible,,,,,,,,,Fact....It was written
centurys later,,,,Fact. The problem is that anytime that anything gets
written down people figure it must be true or why else would somebody
have written it.

PS,,,You know what they say about God don't you,,,He's an invisible
 friend for grown up's!


----------



## capsfan78

Beta84 said:


> obviously evolution didn't happen.  Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now.  they didn't evolve into humans.  humans were always here.
> 
> although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff.  geez this guy was good



How can you say evolution didn't/doesn't happen.  We deal with evolution every day.

All life forms on this planet are basically made up of the same things.  If you look at things on a people/animal scale, you don't see evolution happen for 100s of years.  But look at it on a much small scale.  We will use viruses.  Viruses are constantly evolving to adapt to the medicines we create to fight them.  They also have the abilities to change in the manner of how it is contracted (ingestion, injection, inhalation) these are evolutionary changes in the virus itself.

Or does God(or who ever) keep sending down new versions of illnesses?


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.
> 
> Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.
> 
> Thank you.



I've never said it's not a possible option, just like you're apparently saying evolution is a possible option.  I've just said ID is ridiculous and wrong.


----------



## Beta84

capsfan78 said:


> How can you say evolution didn't/doesn't happen.  We deal with evolution every day.
> 
> All life forms on this planet are basically made up of the same things.  If you look at things on a people/animal scale, you don't see evolution happen for 100s of years.  But look at it on a much small scale.  We will use viruses.  Viruses are constantly evolving to adapt to the medicines we create to fight them.  They also have the abilities to change in the manner of how it is contracted (ingestion, injection, inhalation) these are evolutionary changes in the virus itself.
> 
> Or does God(or who ever) keep sending down new versions of illnesses?



   

I WAS BEING SARCASTIC.   geez people


----------



## foodcritic

Beta84 said:


> I was only trying to make a point -- I wasn't saying the Bible is definitely false.  I'm saying that it's very difficult to determine what's true, what's not, and basically everything else in between.  Can we say, for certain, that certain events took place?  Even if every little piece of history was accurate within the bible, does that mean the actual supernatural events took place?  No.  Same with any other book written for the purposes of religion.  I am not saying any book is wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to prove definitively that any of them are right.
> 
> Speaking of the earth being round, didn't the Vatican strongly disagree that the earth was round for centuries?  Didn't they disagree that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries?  It's archaic.  They tell you what they want to believe based on the Bible.  They ignore science.  Religion is good for some stuff, but to listen to religion when there is science saying otherwise is just silly.
> 
> 
> It has.  Heck, Christianity believes in that book too...it's called the Old Testament.  It's just that the New Testament changed a ton because they didn't really like the first cut
> 
> 
> 
> You've already proved that you're pretty effing stupid, but to quote ME of all people when I was being completely sarcastic and mocking some people with that statement is just retarded.  Go away and let the big boys discuss.




I think your missing a little of what I meant.  The round earth thing was just an analogy.  Is it difficult to determine what is true?  I think you can look at evidence to make a determination that one is more true than the others.  While that evidence may not prove 100%, it will provide REASONABLE answers to the question.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> I've never said it's not a possible option, just like you're apparently saying evolution is a possible option.  I've just said ID is ridiculous and wrong.


I've actually said it's pretty obvious that evolution on a micro scale exists.

Believing ID is wrong, but possible, is much different than simply dismissing it as an impossibility.  

Your data for it being "ridiculous"?


----------



## lewis7lewis

*Okay then Explain This!*



foodcritic said:


> capsfan78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The oldest was Methuslah at 969.  The best answer(s) to this are
> 1) God simply allowed for this for the purposes of re-population.
> 2) The human body was less corrupt from the results of Adam's sin and we are naturally regressing from perfection.  With out medical advancment how old would we live to be....I suspect
> In Gen 6 set's man's age at 120yrs and in Psalms
> 
> In Psalm 90 we read
> 10 The length of our days is *seventy years—
> or eighty*, if we have the strength;
> yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
> for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
> 
> 
> I find this passage amazing.  It was written at least 1500 years ago by King David.  How much incite did it take for him to see that man kind's life span would be between 70-80 yrs????.  Exactly what it is today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a fair question.  Without looking at any creation talking points I would speculate that it would be hard to determine the landscape of the earth pre-flood.  The flood forever changed the landscape of earth.  No one doubts a world wide flood BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually the bible is very clear.  There are some areas of disagreement.  However Christians should not divide on issues that are not essential.  I personally think that creation is an essential point that is reiterated through out the OT and NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and
> 2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
> and Ethic backgrounds?And it has not been proven that there was
> global flooding,,,,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! You guys
> always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took
> the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
> a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.Yet we have found
> that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands
> of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse.
> Here we go again,,,Plants have evolved Fact,,,,,Animals have evolved
> Fact,,,,The Planet has evolved Fact,,,Humans have evolved.
> 
> PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
> or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
> sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
> next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
> person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
> it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
> written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
> can not be all true.And as far that goes all great stories need
> a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right?
> But I guess your gonna say I'm out of my F###### Head right?
Click to expand...


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I've actually said it's pretty obvious that evolution on a micro scale exists.
> 
> Believing ID is wrong, but possible, is much different than simply dismissing it as an impossibility.
> 
> Your data for it being "ridiculous"?



If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?


If it's a horse, I call it a horse.

If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> If it's a horse, I call it a horse.



But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.


I answered yours, you answer mine:

This_person said:


> If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?



Both. Humans and chimps share 98-99% of our genetic code, yet we are drastically different creatures. If such a small mutation can create that big of a difference, a longer neck should be simple.


----------



## Beta84

foodcritic said:


> I think your missing a little of what I meant.  The round earth thing was just an analogy.  Is it difficult to determine what is true?  I think you can look at evidence to make a determination that one is more true than the others.  While that evidence may not prove 100%, it will provide REASONABLE answers to the question.


Evidence.  Exactly.  My point was that evidence is often ignored in religion in favor of some old books and people who are unwilling to accept new findings.  If the Vatican refutes that the earth is round for hundreds of years after it's commonly accepted elsewhere, then you don't see some sort of problem or disconnect?  I just take the Vatican as an example since it's basically the most known religious leaders.



OoberBoober said:


> If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?



   thank you for making my life easier on this one


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Both. Humans and chimps share 98-99% of our genetic code, yet we are drastically different creatures. If such a small mutation can create that big of a difference, a longer neck should be simple.


Should be, but they aren't considered to have evolved from the same line.

Cows and whales, yes.  Horses and giraffes, no.

Unless you want to take it back far enough.  Then, you, me and the ficus in my office all evolved from the same ancestor.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.


I'm not sure what you're driving at.  Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Evidence.  Exactly.  My point was that evidence is often ignored in religion in favor of some old books and people who are unwilling to accept new findings.  If the Vatican refutes that the earth is round for hundreds of years after it's commonly accepted elsewhere, then you don't see some sort of problem or disconnect?  I just take the Vatican as an example since it's basically the most known religious leaders.


Yet, take Nuck earlier in this thread - the Big Bang theory is conceived due to scientific investigation by a science professor (who happens to also be Catholic), peer reviewed by scientists and eventually given a thumbs up by even one of the most skeptic scientists (Einstein).  It's the basic scientific belief, even held in higher esteem as the likely right answer than macro evolution among scientists.

But, the Vatican bought into it almost immediately, and the scientist who discovered and documented it originally was a Catholic priest, and therefore Nuck assumes it to be wrong (among others).

This lack of ability to be open minded goes both ways......


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I'm not sure what you're driving at.  Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?



Just giving an example...there's evidence that Jesus walked on water?  And i'm not talking about books or the stories of a few people.  I'm talking about hard evidence that can be researched and proven.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Just giving an example...there's evidence that Jesus walked on water?  And i'm not talking about books or the stories of a few people.  I'm talking about hard evidence that can be researched and proven.


I'm missing the relevance to a faith based story about an individual, and the concept of Darwin vs. a potential intelligent designer of the universe.

You know that ID doesn't require the designer to be the Christian God, nor Genesis to be correct, right?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I'm not sure what you're driving at.  Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?



Because that is the argument you have used this entire thread. You can clearly observe evolution is taking place, or has taken place (See: fossils) aka horse. But you are making a wild conjecture that something magic has a hand in all this, aka unicorn. All in all this is an argument for Occam's razor with relation to Evolution vs ID. However the same argument can be applied to god, and almost everything religious.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Should be, but they aren't considered to have evolved from the same line.
> 
> Cows and whales, yes.  Horses and giraffes, no.
> 
> Unless you want to take it back far enough.  Then, you, me and the ficus in my office all evolved from the same ancestor.



If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough type writers for long enough you will eventually get Shakespeare.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I'm missing the relevance to a faith based story about an individual, and the concept of Darwin vs. a potential intelligent designer of the universe.
> 
> You know that ID doesn't require the designer to be the Christian God, nor Genesis to be correct, right?



Dunno about that.  It was a theory developed by Discovery Institute and they basically say the designer is the Christian God.  It was developed as a way to attempt to legitimize Creationism as a theory to be taught by schools.  The timing or founding theorists aren't at all a coincidence.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Because that is the argument you have used this entire thread. You can clearly observe evolution is taking place, or has taken place (See: fossils) aka horse. But you are making a wild conjecture that something magic has a hand in all this, aka unicorn. All in all this is an argument for Occam's razor with relation to Evolution vs ID. However the same argument can be applied to god, and almost everything religious.


All I'm suggesting is that it's possible.

I argue against the idea that simple evolution answers all questions because there are far too many holes for that to be the case.

I agrue that ID is possible.  Again, please explain the source of the material from which the universe arose without there being something beyond our universe.  It simply can't be done on a scientific basis.  The origins of the universe have to be from something other than the universe.  This implies there is more than the known universe, implying the existence of "super"natural entities.  This implies the possibility of far more than our understanding can "prove" within the boundaries of the universe.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough type writers for long enough you will eventually get Shakespeare.


As witty and applicable as it is original.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Dunno about that.  It was a theory developed by Discovery Institute and they basically say the designer is the Christian God.  It was developed as a way to attempt to legitimize Creationism as a theory to be taught by schools.  The timing or founding theorists aren't at all a coincidence.


Those individuals may believe that way.  They may have even put the name on a theory.

The theory doesn't require it, though.


----------



## foodcritic

*Ok!!*



lewis7lewis said:


> foodcritic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
> and Ethic backgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  And to make more intriguing they must have married their siblings....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it has not been proven that there was global flooding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,,,
> Ok their is significant evidence supporting flood.  As well as various religious history of flood stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a matter of interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
> a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet we have found that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands of years ago.  But God explains everything that's always the Excuse. Here we go again,,,Plants have evolved Fact,,,,,Animals have evolved Fact,,,,The Planet has evolved Fact,,,Humans have evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Closer to your missing link.?   What in the world does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
> or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
> sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
> next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
> person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
> it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
> written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
> can not be all true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the bible proves it reliability.  OT and NT.  As these books were written, they spread and were copied.  Thankfully many many manuscripts have been found.  And what they found was that these individual books were the same.  Great care was taken to reproduce these books.  This provideds additional proof of their authenticity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far that goes all great stories need a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right? But I guess your gonna say I'm out of my F###### Head right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didn't spell it right.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> As witty and applicable as it is original.



So, randomness and probability is not applicable to how random genetic mutations produce different creatures over a large period of time? And to think you called me closed minded.


----------



## capsfan78

foodcritic said:


> lewis7lewis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the bible proves it reliability.  OT and NT.  As these books were written, they spread and were copied.  Thankfully many many manuscripts have been found.  And what they found was that these individual books were the same.  Great care was taken to reproduce these books.  This provideds additional proof of their authenticity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they written books were taken very good care of, and interpreted from the written language to modern language with great care.
> 
> My issue with this is, they were written by man.  Yes, I understand, they are written by man but are the words of god.  A few problems are, why leave out the other books?  If your reading a modern novel, do you just cut out chapters, something very important could be in those missing chapters.  Also, the fact that it was written by man, to me means its been corrupted.  Before you lose it, hear me out.  Modern day people, when writing something are not going to write verbatim.  Words are going to change, things left out.  People are very untrustworthy.  Now, this did not happen over night.  I'm willing to bet, that people back then were just as conniving, and in it for themselves just as they are today.  So, when whoever wrote, what ever book, he changes it to make things better or worse.  The "Word of God" is not corrupted, and tainted.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> So, randomness and probability is not applicable to how random genetic mutations produce different creatures over a large period of time? And to think you called me closed minded.


Could those monkeys create a universe from nothing?

Life from lifelessness?


Yes, randomness supports genetic mutations.

So, let's follow that - for the genetic mutation (per evolution) to be an answer, it would have to require a few things
the mutated offspring would have to either reproduce with others that have an identically randomly mutated offspring, or that mutation would have to be a dominant characteristic for it to be liekly to make it to the next generation
the mutation would have to somehow still allow for the likelihood of reproduction, even in the higher order species that choose mates
to not have the mutation simply dilute out, others of the same species, in the same area, at the same point in time would need to have virtually exactly the same mutation so their offspring could mate and keep the diversity  viable in the gene pool
the mutation would have to be advantageous to the life form, while the "parent" or unmutated lives are still able to flourish (to allow for the timeframe required for significant enough generations to occur to provide for the full splitting effect)

What do you suppose the probablity of that is?  Now, add to that the probability that the life formed in the first place.  Now, add to that the probability that the universe formed in the first place from no source material whatsoever, all without something from an extra-universal source.


Shakespeare in reverse in pig-latin in 16 bit hexidecimal code, from one monkey in one hour.  There's your likelihood.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Could those monkeys create a universe from nothing?
> 
> Life from lifelessness?
> 
> 
> Yes, randomness supports genetic mutations.
> 
> So, let's follow that - for the genetic mutation (per evolution) to be an answer, it would have to require a few things
> the mutated offspring would have to either reproduce with others that have an identically randomly mutated offspring, or that mutation would have to be a dominant characteristic for it to be liekly to make it to the next generation
> the mutation would have to somehow still allow for the likelihood of reproduction, even in the higher order species that choose mates
> to not have the mutation simply dilute out, others of the same species, in the same area, at the same point in time would need to have virtually exactly the same mutation so their offspring could mate and keep the diversity  viable in the gene pool
> the mutation would have to be advantageous to the life form, while the "parent" or unmutated lives are still able to flourish (to allow for the timeframe required for significant enough generations to occur to provide for the full splitting effect)
> 
> What do you suppose the probablity of that is?  Now, add to that the probability that the life formed in the first place.  Now, add to that the probability that the universe formed in the first place from no source material whatsoever, all without something from an extra-universal source.
> 
> 
> Shakespeare in reverse in pig-latin in 16 bit hexidecimal code, from one monkey in one hour.  There's your likelihood.



It's called time. This happens over billions of years. Add in the fact that not every species takes 9 months to gestate, or die in 80 years, and its a surprise it didn't happen sooner.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Could those monkeys create a universe from nothing?



I thought we were talking about evolution, yet you keep trying to change the subject.


----------



## thatguy

foodcritic said:


> lewis7lewis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foodcritic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  And to make more intriguing they must have married their siblings....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you better not say that around here unless you are ready for a fight, This_Person says the book says there were lots of other "tribes" for them to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> It's called time. This happens over billions of years.


So, what is the date of first life?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> I thought we were talking about evolution, yet you keep trying to change the subject.


Okay, for evolution to have occurred, where did the first life come from to start the process of advancement via mutation?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> So, what is the date of first life?



Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Okay, for evolution to have occurred, where did the first life come from to start the process of advancement via mutation?



Is it a horse or a unicorn?


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> So, what is the date of first life?



What is the date that Adam miraculously appeared on earth?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the be all and end all of knowledge (Wikipedia), life forms with exceptionally short lifespans and therefore rapd evolution rates took 2.8 billion years (give or take, apparently) to make it to multicellular life.

Then, as the process of evolution would necessarily slow down due to longer and longer lifespans/generations, evolution sped up and complex animals formed in about 400 millions years.

Now,we're really slowed down the process due to exponentially increasing generational turnarounds, so the process gets even faster, and the complexity of animals, plants, etc., all form in an explosion of evolution that takes just millions of years.

Yep, the slower the likelihood of evolution, the faster it occurs.

I see why you follow this.

wait, what?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Is it a horse or a unicorn?


Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.


----------



## This_person

capsfan78 said:


> What is the date that Adam miraculously appeared on earth?


You're asking me to justify something I'm not postulating as the answer.  Why?

Adam is from a group of specific religious faiths.  Why would that be pertinent to this discussion?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> According to the be all and end all of knowledge (Wikipedia), life forms with exceptionally short lifespans and therefore rapd evolution rates took 2.8 billion years (give or take, apparently) to make it to multicellular life.
> 
> Then, as the process of evolution would necessarily slow down due to longer and longer lifespans/generations, evolution sped up and complex animals formed in about 400 millions years.
> 
> Now,we're really slowed down the process due to exponentially increasing generational turnarounds, so the process gets even faster, and the complexity of animals, plants, etc., all form in an explosion of evolution that takes just millions of years.
> 
> Yep, the slower the likelihood of evolution, the faster it occurs.
> 
> I see why you follow this.
> 
> wait, what?



True, magic is a much better explanation.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.



Yours is worse.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> True, magic is a much better explanation.


Personally, I don't support magic as an explaination.


----------



## thatguy

OoberBoober said:


> Yours is worse.



but yours is stupid because it is with an imaginary horse with a horn, while TP's is obvious truth because his is with an imaginary human like spirit that can control everything, yet fails to do anything, promises eternal life, but you have to die to get it, and created everything out of nothing, but has no explaination of where he may have come from. Oh, and it was all in a book


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> You're asking me to justify something I'm not postulating as the answer.  Why?
> 
> Adam is from a group of specific religious faiths.  Why would that be pertinent to this discussion?



It was in reference to your argument of when the first life form appeared on earth.


----------



## This_person

capsfan78 said:


> It was in reference to your argument of when the first life form appeared on earth.


But, I suggest ID as a potential alternative to undirected evolution.

That does not suggest Adam as the alternative.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> :bullshiat: Many cultures have some form of Flood


Please take the Christian story bashing to another thread - this one is about a show coming on regarding Darwin!


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Did Dinosaurs and Man co-exist?


Which dinasours?

Which man?

Do alligators and coelacanths exist today, or do they not count?


----------



## capsfan78

This_person said:


> But, I suggest ID as a potential alternative to undirected evolution.
> 
> That does not suggest Adam as the alternative.



The question was rhetorical.  Not totally directed at you, but for the argument in general.


----------



## This_person

capsfan78 said:


> The question was rhetorical.  Not totally directed at you, but for the argument in general.


Fair enough.

If we're going to discuss the Bible, specifically, as a source of scientific knowledge vs evolution - well, we'll both lose because they're both religions that have no real basis in sound scientific process.  The main argument of each is "well, we're around, so _something_ happened, and I say it's _*this*_" from a scientific point of view.

My only point regarding ID is that it offers all of the science of evolution with even more options as potential answers.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Kinda This_Person has invented this entire other city, that no one has ever heard of, nor is it described in the Bible, to explain the diversity. (even though Genesis 3:20 disputes this)


You and Thatidiot brothers?

I merely suggested a potential alternative to Cain's wife being his sister - since it says just as much about Cain having a sister to marry as it does about further creation beyond Adam and Eve.  Well, that's not true, it suggests by context clues that other people were created than Adam and Eve (Gen 2:18 and Gen 2:20), and the idea of Gen 3:20 combined with the story of Noah (not left alone) makes it true either way.

But, you believe as you will.  I don't need to know where Cain's wife came from and don't suggest an alternative as the ONLY alternative to incest.  I don't NEED to know where she came from - it doesn't effect the story.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Poetic licenses much?  Lematre was an active, practicing ordained Catholic Priest, who developed the Big Bang theory that was approved by the Catholic church


No poetic license.  You merely edit out the pertinent parts.

While he was a priest, he wasn't practicing - he was a college professor.  While the theory was embraced by teh Catholic Church, it was FIRST embraced by scientific peer review (and I've shown you where he asked "the church" to stop being so vocally emphatic about the theory, as it was NOT a religious theory but a scientific one).

So, no, _*I*_ don't practice poetic license much





> That isnt the reason i stated it was wrong, I stated the universe always was.  I just pointed out that the Big Bang theory was created and approved by the Catholic Church because it coincides with their story of Genesis.


Both of those positions, though, don't hold up to the most minimal of scrutiny.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> So you admit to inventing this entire other civilization that no one has ever heard of, and isnt described in the Bible (yet Genesis disputes your story)?


Not at all.

Please reread the post I made.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Nice try did Man and the T-Rex exist at the same time?


You're asking me to verify something based on fossil records.

The same fossil records that are only off by 65 million years on coelacanths?

Given the timeframe of +/- 65 million years, and the wiki source provided earlier, dinosaurs exist today.

Now, I don't personally think t-rex exists today, but that's the certainty of the *science* provided in this thread.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> The question wasnt originally asked of you, you decided to enter this conversation. I asked Beta


You didn't like my answer?  


> I made the question simpler for you, did Man and the T-Rex coexist at the same time?  Heres some more for you to answer with your circular logi
> Did man and :
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex exist at the same time?
> Triceratops exist at the same time?
> Velociraptors exist at the same time?
> Ankylosaurus exist at the same time?
> Stegosaurus exist at the same time?
> Hell theres to many go here (simple resource) how many of these existed with mankind?


Again, given the answer must come from fossil records, and the scientific interpretation of fossil records demonstrates a variable in accuracy of +/- 65,000,000 years, the only reasonable answer is that those creatures could exist today.

I don't think they _do_ exist today, but that's within the accuracy of the scientifically reviewed data.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> You didn't like my answer?  Again, given the answer must come from fossil records, and the scientific interpretation of fossil records demonstrates a variable in accuracy of +/- 65,000,000 years, the only reasonable answer is that those creatures could exist today.
> 
> I don't think they _do_ exist today, but that's within the accuracy of the scientifically reviewed data.



Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years. 
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)



> Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years.
> Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)


So, when we were sure the coelacanths died out 65 million years ago, which fossil dating technique were we using?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years.
> Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)


Of course, there's always the Wollemi pine, the ginkgo tree, the okapi, etc., etc.


Of course, grass certainly didn't devolop until dinasours died out.  That was the gospel truth until grass was found in dinasour dung.


With certainty like that......


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Not really sure why your having such a problem answer a simple question.
> 
> Let me try again.


I've answered it.  Repeatedly.

Based on the accuracy of the science, these animals still exist today.

I disagree with the accuracy of the science, but that's what it tells anyone wondering.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Did the dating prove the Coelacanths died out 65 million years ago, or that the coelacanth fossil they were testing was 65 million years old?
> 
> You do realize the difference?
> 
> Do you understand the Coelacanth fossil they dated as being 65 million years old was a species of Coelacanth? The ones found off the coast of Africa was an evolved speciman from that animal.
> 
> You defeat your argument when you show a sucessfull evolutionary link.


And, the differences in the 65 million year old fossil and the living creature?  Effectively nil.

You defeat your argument when you show that we can't figure out within the accuracy of 65 millions years whether a species still exists.

You further defeat your argument when you demonstrate animals that exist with a virtual evolutionary standstill for hundreds of millions of years, like
Alligators
Crocidiles
Army ants
A sea lilly called a crinoid
Dragonflies
Horseshoe Crabs
The Laotian rock rat
Salamanders
Sturgeon
A lizard called the tuatara
Velvet worms


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You answered it with the typical This_Person circular answer.  You didnt answer whether you believe Man and :
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex exist at the same time?
> Triceratops exist at the same time?
> Velociraptors exist at the same time?
> Ankylosaurus exist at the same time?
> Stegosaurus exist at the same time?


I'll provide the same answer, reworded to meet your criteria.


No
No
No
No
NO
but, the science provides that these creatures are as likely to exist today as not, based on an inaccuracy of +/- 65 million years in being able to identify when a species died out.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> And, the differences in the 65 million year old fossil and the living creature?  Effectively nil.
> 
> You defeat your argument when you show that we can't figure out within the accuracy of 65 millions years whether a species still exists.
> 
> You further defeat your argument when you demonstrate animals that exist with a virtual evolutionary standstill for hundreds of millions of years, like
> Alligators
> Crocidiles
> Army ants
> A sea lilly called a crinoid
> Dragonflies
> Horseshoe Crabs
> The Laotian rock rat
> Salamanders
> Sturgeon
> A lizard called the tuatara
> Velvet worms



So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....


Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene. 
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT. 


capsfan78 said:


> Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word? So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.
> When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it.  Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem.  How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?
> How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible?  How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?


I should have followed your signature line but oh well...
Nothing was left out of the Bible. You have left faith out of the equation. 
Without faith in God's power to make all these things happen, OF COURSE you can't get your questions answered. With God all things are possible but you choose not to believe this. 
*P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan...* 


lewis7lewis said:


> So What *dose* that prove your no Theologian I'm sure  and just because,,, You believe in something *dosn't* make it So ,,,and just because you Don't,,,*dosn't* mean it's not True. That goes for Reglion,UFOs,Bigfoot and so on and so on!Look genius the Bible was written by authors unknown,,,Fact....Storys left out of the Bible,,,,,,,,,Fact....It was written centurys later,,,,Fact. *The problem is that anytime that anything gets* written down people figure it must be true or why else would somebody have written it. PS,,,You know what they say about God don't you,,,He's an invisible  friend for grown up's!


Typical person with no faith...
Your spelling causes me to believe in God more and more. You're lucky Darwin was wrong....


lewis7lewis said:


> So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and
> 2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
> and Ethic backgrounds?And it has not been proven that there was
> global flooding,,,,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! You guys
> always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took
> the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
> a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.Yet we have found
> that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands
> of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse.


Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on... 


			
				lewis7lewis said:
			
		

> PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
> or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
> sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
> next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
> person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
> it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
> written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
> can not be all true.And as far that goes all great stories need
> a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right?


Only true if you leave God out... 


OoberBoober said:


> Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia??? 


Nucklesack said:


> [*]How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites?
> [*] And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?[/list]
> [*] The total amount of water carried for the animals would have sunk the ark. The aquarium for a pair of whales genus, would have sunk the ark many times.
> [*] Some animals, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
> [*] Some, animals like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
> [*] Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months.
> [*] Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating.
> [*] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
> [*] How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?
> [*] How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc.,
> [*] According to the account in the bible, every mountain to was covered with water, Mt Everest is just a little over 29,000 ft above sea level
> [*] Where did the water come from?
> [*] Where did the water go?
> [*] water doesn't just disappear, once here always here, it just changes form from gas to liquid to a solid. So if there was enough water to flood the whole earth, it would still be here today, and if it were here today, we would still be under water. Even if all the ice melted there would not be enough flood the whole planet.


The answer to all your questions is GOD but, since you factor Him out, you'll never understand. Scientists and people will fumble and look foolish trying to disprove what God has written and done. How silly of humans to try. 
If I, as a layman, read a book on major medical procedures, I would only understand a small part of it because I'm not a doctor. I wouldn't have the right or desire to say it was wrong, flawed or made up in any way. The Bible is just such a book to you so why don't you accept this and leave it alone? 
If God can make powerful meat eating beasts be docile in Heaven after this life, why whould it have been hard for Him to sustain them in the Ark?


----------



## BeHereNow

Gone one day and look what happens.

~ ~ ~


> *This person* All things? Including a supreme being?


I am a Deist.



> Originally Posted by BeHereNow
> Here's how I would say it.
> The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.
> 
> *This_Person*YOUR version of perfection.
> 
> Why would that necessarily be someone else's version of perfection?



I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
This is, it seems to me, indisputable.

There may be other reasons as well, but these are secondary. 
If there is another reason, such as (to glorify god), or (to lead to another species), or (to help another species to prosper), none of these can occur if the species does not exist, so it must exist. The is the primary, and it seem to me, indisputable reason for a species existence.

If it does not exist, it cannot fulfill any secondary purpose.

If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.




> *This_Person* But, you're defining the success or failure. By defining the success and failure, you are assuming an intent, a purpose, a reason. Back up, and don't assume YOU know the reason for the species longevity. If you're not presumptuous in that way, you can be more objective.


 Existence is its own reason, first and foremost. 
This is not assuming anything, it is merely observing objective reality.

The longevity of a species is dependent on its ability to survive in the environment, as it occurs naturally or as it has been modified by the species. 
This is a truism, and assumes nothing.
This is objective. To assume there is more, is subjective.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~



> *Im_Me* I agree to a degree...It really comes down to the fact that faith can be supported by logic and science but it is neither science or logic. I think I see an active and loving Creator in the same things that indicate to you that there is not one.


Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
The mind can intuit truth.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your confusion is vast, and thanfully it can be helped.  The Colecanth that was dated as being 65 million years old, was believed to be extinct solely because there wasnt any evidence of any species surviving.


So, we were unable to find 65,000,000 years worth of fossils of an existing species, yet you think the fossils we find hold any value?

See, I understand the fossil dated was dated properly.  I understand the current animals are the current animals.  My point is, we're too unaware of what's gone on the last 65 million years, why would there be any faith in the fossil records?

If someone were to tell you they are an expert on car companies, and they haven't found any evidence of Ford Motor Company vehicles in two decades, would you really trust anything else they had to say on their area of "expertise"?





> Just because something existed 65 million years ago, does not mean it still doesnt (You forgot Whales, and Great Whites in your list).
> 
> And there is no correalation between the animals listed above and their evolutionary state.  You further expand on your failure to understand what evolution is.
> 
> While the animals you listed above existed, they are not the same back then and todays variants.  They have evolved, just as the Colecanth.


Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.

Apparently, they are immune to evolution.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.


Animals and plants not evolving for hundreds of millions of years is proof of evolution?

By that logic, lack of finding Atlantis is pure proof positive it existed.  Not finding it in the Chesapeake Bay proves that's where it was.


----------



## BeHereNow

> *This_Person* Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.
> 
> Apparently, they are immune to evolution.


Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an  environment, and sometime that change means extinction.

You sometimes like to play 'what ifs', so let me try one on you.
What if the internal organs changed (mutated possibly), allowing completely different food sources, but externally they remained the same.
If they did, this would be an example of evolution at work, and evidence to show it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.

We can expect that evironments will change drastically, and some organisms will adapt, some will die out, and some will pack their bags and move to a friendlier environment.
Nothing in evolution says all organisms are expected to become extinct.
As it turns out, many of them have.
By the time earth is no longer habitable for mankind, we may well be at another location.
And of course there is the cockroach, that seems to florish nearly everywhere. We will probably take them with us, unintentionallyh of course.


----------



## Beta84

Nucklesack said:


> Did Dinosaurs and Man co-exist?


I don't know.  Why are you asking me?  I'm not a scientist.  It's possible, sure.  But did they?  Who knows.  I think man was put in one of the later eras closer to stuff like the saber tooth tiger and whatnot, instead of during the era of the colossal dinosaurs.  That's just based off memory though.  I think it's possible, but not a definitive yes.



ItalianScallion said:


> Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
> In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.


The Jews don't believe in Jesus as the son of God or the messiah because he didn't fulfill the prophecies that were expected of him.  He is considered a prophet, but NOT the son of God or the messiah.  



> *P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan...*


I presume you mean present day Democrats and Republicans?  Since, of course, the present day parties have basically flip-flopped during your lifetime (or thereabouts), slick.  




> Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on...


I don't know if it's necessarily true that the flooding was "worldwide", nor did it have to be "worldwide".  Why?  Because most of the stuff in the Bible seemed to have the world on a pretty small scale.  The world wasn't all that large to them, so the flooding really only needed to be a specific area, which there is indeed evidence of flooding in that general vicinity.

As for other artifacts from the Bible...well geez dude, no crap!  That doesn't mean all of the events actually happened though.  Even if they found the exact described sandal in the exact location where they said Jesus lost it after he walked on water, that DOESNT mean he actually walked on water!  Or well, I guess he could have walked through a puddle.  They might find the cup where he turned water into wine, but it doesn't mean he didn't add some powdered substance like Crystal Light!

My point is, same as the one I made before that was avoided, the artifacts SHOULD come up because these books were written and probably relatively accurate in a historical perspective.  But that doesn't mean the stories they wrote were 100% true.  I question that for all religions including my own...but I'm sure various artifacts are pulled up with any and all of the religious books (cept for Dianetics!)



> What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia???


Wikipedia may not be perfect, but most of their stuff is at least useful for discussion.  Discrediting his argument on what appears to be a good link (if you actually click on it) is just a coward's way of trying to avoid an argument.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Evolution has no requirements.
> It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
> It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an  environment, and sometime that change means extinction.


It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether.  That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.

It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale.  The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records.  Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.

None of this proves anything.  That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether.  That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.
> 
> It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale.  The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records.  Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.
> 
> None of this proves anything.  That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.


Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
You think you exist? Prove it.
There is convincing evidence, or not.

Was the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.
Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.

Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.

Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.

Enough evidence and a reasonable person is convinced.
Through logic out the window and nothing and everything is convincing.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
> You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
> You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
> You think you exist? Prove it.
> There is convincing evidence, or not.


These are philosophy class questions, not science questions





> Was the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
> Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.


I'll buy your argument about 7 days.  Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days.  Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part.  What were the conditions on earth when life first formed?  By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up.  Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.





> Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.


And it's good you have that religion to hold onto.  The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions.  And, even those pieces have holes.

Micro evolution - dandy.  Macro evolution - religion.





> Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.


What convincing evidence?  Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans?  Holes in evolutionary chains?  The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.





> Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.
> 
> You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
> Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.


I provide no proof.  I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
> In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.



 you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.

your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days.  Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days.  Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.
> 
> However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part.  What were the conditions on earth when life first formed?  By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up.  Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto.  The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions.  And, even those pieces have holes.
> 
> Micro evolution - dandy.  Macro evolution - religion.What convincing evidence?  Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans?  Holes in evolutionary chains?  The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?
> 
> The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof.  I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.



You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions. Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.

No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions.


You make an interesting argument.  One I strongly disagree with, but interesting nonetheless.





> Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.


I understand it just fine, thanks!  


> No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.


Not true.  People have made observations and discovered evidence regarding micro-evolution, and extrapolated macro-evolution from that.

Big difference.  Therefore, religion.


----------



## This_person

BeHereNow said:


> Gone one day and look what happens.





> I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
> The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
> This is, it seems to me, indisputable.


That you STRONGLY believe it doesn't take it out of the realm of your belief.

Whenever you try to put an intent on design, without knowing the intent, you're simply making an assumption.  You're rejecting a possible answer based on an assumption.  You've concluded, as a diest, that you're wrong about diety because you don't agree with your version of the intent.  Really, is that the way you want to go?





> If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.


No, it's speculation just like the speculation that the existence is NOT "meant" to be temporary.  They're both just assumptions.  One allows for more potential answers, the other dismisses possible answers.





> Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
> The mind can intuit truth.


Exactly!


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.



Oh the irony..............


----------



## Beta84

thatguy said:


> you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.
> 
> your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah





that...was...awesome.


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> :bullshiat: Many cultures have some form of Flood Myth, but that isnt the same as saying its a widely accepted "story".
> 
> There are plenty of problems with the parable:
> 
> Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?
> Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity.
> For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
> list]




If your going to cut and paste full pages....at least cite the source!!  Don't pawn it off as your own thought....


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Oh the irony..............


When it comes to my personal beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine to believe as I will.

When it comes to discussing Darwin vs evolution vs ID, it doesn't really fit.


----------



## BeHereNow

This_person said:


> These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days.  Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days.  Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.
> 
> However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part.  What were the conditions on earth when life first formed?  By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up.  Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto.  The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions.  And, even those pieces have holes.


WEll, if you want to describe 'mud', so that is is mustly water, we can agree.
now must poeple think 'mud' can be made into mudpies, and that is rather thick, and not likely to allow combination of amino acids and such.



> Micro evolution - dandy.  Macro evolution - religion.


Religion? Well I hav e seen some people define 'religion' so that baseball can be considered a religion.
To me, religion involves faith. Evolution is based on evidence, some concrete and some logical, valid, reasoning based on the concrete evidence. Not faith, so no, not religion by my use of the word.
Since you did not say why you consider evolution to be religion, I will have to wonder.



> What convincing evidence?


Well, we could agrue about the details. I've studied up on it some. But lets cut to the chase.
The scientific community, as a whole, endorses evolution as valid.
I've examined their findings and arguments, and find them to be solid, valid, and consistent with reality.
I've also studied their detractors, and find them to be illogical, discordant with the evidence, and not credible.
Some among all of the convincing evidence, what I find extremely credible, esy to understand and explain, and undeniable, is the opinon of the scientific community.



> Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans?[//quote]Well, if you disregard evolution, it might be unexplainable.
> I find no 'sudden spurts' to be inconsistent with the principles of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holes in evolutionary chains?
> 
> 
> 
> Holes?
> oh, I see, you mean evolutionary studies are an ongoing thing, and not a completed science. Newsflash: No science is a completed study.
> No scientific endeavor has answered all of the questions.
> I might add, they probably never will. Always a new frontier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wonderful!
> What does that have to do with evolution on earth, expect some idle speculation you may have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof.  I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious aversion?
> What is this religious aversion?
Click to expand...


----------



## BeHereNow

> *This_Person*  That you STRONGLY believe it doesn't take it out of the realm of your belief.


What?
If my belief is incorrect, offer your belief, so that I can consider it.



> Whenever you try to put an intent on design, without knowing the intent, you're simply making an assumption.


What intent?
I say there is no intent, so that is intent?
No intent. A groundhog lives under my deck, it has no intent of living or continuting the species. It simply 'is'. It lives, the species continues, with no intent.
If you say their is intent, make you case. 
What is your evidence there is intent?
Some irreducible complexity in groundhogs that requires an outside force?



> You're rejecting a possible answer based on an assumption.


What assumption?
I assume what is in clear evidence. 
You assume what is not in evidence.
You assume what is possible, although improbable, what has no evidence except some minority view of reasoning.
If I am  to assume based on the evidence or based on what has no evidence, I know which side I choose.



> You've concluded, as a diest, that you're wrong about diety because you don't agree with your version of the intent.  Really, is that the way you want to go?No, it's speculation just like the speculation that the existence is NOT "meant" to be temporary.  They're both just assumptions.  One allows for more potential answers, the other dismisses possible answers.Exactly!


I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish to me.
I'm wrong because I don't agree with myself concerning my beliefs? Gibberish


Existence is temporary.
All things are transient.
There is no permanance.
You think these are false assumptions, show them incorrect.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.
> your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah


The actual Bible wasn't *compiled* until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses. 
DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name. 
Don't bet the farm on that last statement....


OoberBoober said:


> No one has ever observed a god.


????? 


Beta84 said:


> that...was...awesome.


----------



## BeHereNow

*ItallianScallion*

You are a young and niave Christian.
The Torah talks about the Messiah. You are free to believe that that applies to Jesus, unfortunately those who know the most about the Torah, disagree with you. 
When I want to know about the Torah, I go to a Jew, not a Christian.
When I wan to know about the Quran, I go to a Muslim, not a Christian.

There are many flavors of Chritianity, and you niavely believe yours is the 'one true flavor'.
This is not unusual, most of the other flavors believe the same thing,. 

You were unaware that MANY Christians believe demons are real, and walk the earth. This amazes me. I thought every Christains knew of these sects.

Even among creationists there are many flavors.
All share the one belief that their understanding is true to the Bible and the others are mistaken.
God speaks to them and tells them why they are correct, and the others are not.

One God, many voices, many messages.
That is what bothered the Founding Fathers.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> The actual Bible wasn't *compiled* until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses.
> DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name.
> Don't bet the farm on that last statement....
> 
> ?????



and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus 

your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.

still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews


----------



## foodcritic

thatguy said:


> and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus
> 
> your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.
> 
> still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews



Lets stay on topic


----------



## Im_Me

foodcritic said:


> Lets stay on topic



WHICH TOPIC?  I pulled out when this went to anarchy of unicorns, torahs cu'rans, and flash lights.


----------



## foodcritic

BeHereNow said:


> Evolution has no requirements.
> It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
> It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an  environment, and sometime that change means extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It absolutely  requires things to change.  The whole theory is about "change" (we can't believe it ).  It may be an explanation to you but it is a theory to everyone else.  According to the evolutionist for something to "change" it would *require * certain conditions.  There has to be requirements for evolution to take place like time, temp and water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sometimes like to play 'what ifs', so let me try one on you.
> What if the internal organs changed (mutated possibly), allowing completely different food sources, but externally they remained the same.
> If they did, t_his would be an example of evolution at work, and evidence to show it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a self defeating argument. By your own words it would be "virtually impossible to demonstrate".  Then how do you plan on demonstrating it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can expect that evironments will change drastically, and some organisms will adapt, some will die out, and some will pack their bags and move to a friendlier environment.
> Nothing in evolution says all organisms are expected to become extinct.
> As it turns out, many of them have.
> By the time earth is no longer habitable for mankind, we may well be at another location.
> And of course there is the cockroach, that seems to florish nearly everywhere. We will probably take them with us, unintentionallyh of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "science" dinos died out due to world wide catastrophe.  Wiping out just about everything on earth.  This "opportunity" then allowed for the evolution of the mammal line to us.  At least that's how the splain it on the science channel.
> 
> Out of those 5 billion years we had no human like evolution until the last few hundred thousand years or so.
> 
> If you are a godless person ( like most in scientists today) then it's easy to draw conclusions that validate your world view.  If we evolved, you can point to variations in species and extrapolate out for millions of years what they came from.  Even when the evidence for it is non existent.
> 
> If we found a fossilized schnauzer for example and then later found a fossilized greyhound what would we conclude?  You would most likely conclude that the schnauzer was some distant ancestor to the greyhound based on the progression of size and it's apparent "enhanced features".  We know that this is completely false.  These are both the same exact species with different features ( I might add that the diversity of dog appearence is a direct relationship to intelligent design, mans).
> 
> Just for full disclosure i don't believe in evolution or intelligent design rather the spoken word of God in creation ark and all.
Click to expand...


----------



## ItalianScallion

BeHereNow said:


> You are a young and niave Christian.
> The Torah talks about the Messiah. You are free to believe that that applies to Jesus, unfortunately those who know the most about the Torah, disagree with you.


This is why Jesus spend most of His time warning the Jews against denying who He is. Just like you they denied the proof right under their noses. They misunderstood what Moses wrote and it cost them their souls. 


			
				BeHereNow said:
			
		

> There are many flavors of Chritianity, and you niavely believe yours is the 'one true flavor'.
> This is not unusual, most of the other flavors believe the same thing.


You, sir, are wrong. Very wrong. (So is your spelling)...
Please tell me what belief system you follow and please be specific...


			
				BeHereNow said:
			
		

> You were unaware that MANY Christians believe demons are real, and walk the earth. This amazes me. I thought every Christains knew of these sects.


Where did you get that from??? I was not _unaware_ of this, I just printed the truth about the invisibility of demons. One can still be a Christian and believe in visible demons. They'd be wrong but they can still be Christians. 


			
				BeHereNow said:
			
		

> Even among creationists there are many flavors.
> All share the one belief that their understanding is true to the Bible and the others are mistaken.
> God speaks to them and tells them why they are correct, and the others are not. One God, many voices, many messages.
> That is what bothered the Founding Fathers.


What matters to Christians is not creation but who Jesus is. 
You need to get educated on what a true Christian is. 


thatguy said:


> and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus.


You are totally wrong on that point. 


			
				thatguy said:
			
		

> your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.
> still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews


I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts. 
If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also??? 


foodcritic said:


> Lets stay on topic


Good luck with that....


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> The actual Bible wasn't *compiled* until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses.
> DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name.
> Don't bet the farm on that last statement....


No, it's not that people don't realize, it's back to what you said in the middle part of this post about the difference in beliefs.  Someone was referred to, but Jews (for instance) don't believe that someone was Jesus.



ItalianScallion said:


> I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
> If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???


I don't think so.  If there was absolute proof in those books, then why would people disagree?  Why is it that most present-day Christians originated from the conversion of the Roman Empire, and not from the actual events that took place?  Jesus was hardly believed in during his time.  So if he really performed all of these miracles in front of Jews and others, why didn't anyone believe in him?  

I think it's  impossible to offer up "proof" that "your book" is truly from God, but then again I think it's relatively impossible for any religion to do so.  Presenting historical artifacts and other stuff just shows that it was written in the era it was claimed in and that some of the stuff adhered to true events, but not that everything occurred just as it is claimed.  But heck, some of the books written these days write about true events that occurred, but add their own bits of fiction intertwined with truth.  Obviously they're works of fiction, but if someone discovered them buried 300 years from now, who knows how they'd perceive them.  They could easily be mistaken as historical documents that give a more detailed view on life in our time, when really it's just works of fiction.


----------



## BeHereNow

ItalianScallion said:


> This is why Jesus spend most of His time warning the Jews against denying who He is. Just like you they denied the proof right under their noses. They misunderstood what Moses wrote and it cost them their souls.
> 
> You, sir, are wrong. Very wrong. (So is your spelling)...
> Please tell me what belief system you follow and please be specific...
> 
> Where did you get that from??? I was not _unaware_ of this, I just printed the truth about the invisibility of demons. One can still be a Christian and believe in visible demons. They'd be wrong but they can still be Christians.
> 
> What matters to Christians is not creation but who Jesus is.
> You need to get educated on what a true Christian is.
> 
> You are totally wrong on that point.
> 
> I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
> If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???
> 
> Good luck with that....


My belief system is at the exact point where Zen, Deism, and Christianity intersect.

I have been told by many Christians more mature than yourself what a 'True Christian' is, they all disagreed with each other, and would disagree wtih you. 

You need some life experiences.

There are many masions in your father's house. You have seen one room.


----------



## thatguy

ItalianScallion said:


> You are totally wrong on that point.
> 
> I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
> If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???
> 
> Good luck with that....



you haven't given any proof, the closest you have come is to say that its "oldness" makes it true, but the jewish book is older. And despite what you may claim, their book doesn't reference YOUR jesus, it references their messiah. the evidence that their messiah hasn't yet come is much stringer than evidence that jesus was truely the son of god.
DO you beleive people when they vehemently proclaim that they are god on earth? when a modern day person proclaims they speak to god, are you a believer?
I mean the book of mormon was written by 1 person who had dialogue with an angel and you wont believe his "true word of god".


----------



## thatguy

foodcritic said:


> Lets stay on topic



go ahead and start another thread on this subject, if you aren't just punting because you have no argument


----------



## Beta84

thatguy said:


> you haven't given any proof, the closest you have come is to say that its "oldness" makes it true, but the jewish book is older. And despite what you may claim, their book doesn't reference YOUR jesus, it references their messiah. the evidence that their messiah hasn't yet come is much stringer than evidence that jesus was truely the son of god.
> DO you beleive people when they vehemently proclaim that they are god on earth? when a modern day person proclaims they speak to god, are you a believer?
> I mean the book of mormon was written by 1 person who had dialogue with an angel and you wont believe his "true word of god".



How bout when a chick gets knocked up these days...how many people believe she's actually abstinent or a virgin?  it's not like they were checking back in those days!  even if they could, there are other ways to get knocked up apparently (such as the splash landing!).  she may have told her husband that it was the work of God because obviously the two of them weren't sleeping together and she'd never do anything else (it coulda been the milk man's son!).

Not saying that's how it happened, but it's possible.  The only "evidence" anyone has really provided are historical artifacts and other tidbits of information that show the books were written in the era the claim to be written.  Well gee, again, that's obvious!  But there's still no proof that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, or performed ANY of the claimed miracles, other than what is specifically written down.  And even if multiple people who didn't know of each other wrote their own accounts, it could have been magic tricks.  Ever heard of Houdini?  :shrug:

Back on topic slightly, ID was created by a bunch of Creation-thumping religion zealots who were trying to get religious idealogy taught within the classroom.  Nothing more.  It's a compromise made by Christian entities who lost their battle with Creationism that still attempts to insert religion into scientific theory.


----------



## thatguy

Beta84 said:


> How bout when a chick gets knocked up these days...how many people believe she's actually abstinent or a virgin?  it's not like they were checking back in those days!  even if they could, there are other ways to get knocked up apparently (such as the splash landing!).  she may have told her husband that it was the work of God because obviously the two of them weren't sleeping together and she'd never do anything else (it coulda been the milk man's son!).
> 
> Not saying that's how it happened, but it's possible.  The only "evidence" anyone has really provided are historical artifacts and other tidbits of information that show the books were written in the era the claim to be written.  Well gee, again, that's obvious!  But there's still no proof that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, or performed ANY of the claimed miracles, other than what is specifically written down.  And even if multiple people who didn't know of each other wrote their own accounts, it could have been magic tricks.  Ever heard of Houdini?  :shrug:
> 
> Back on topic slightly, ID was created by a bunch of Creation-thumping religion zealots who were trying to get religious idealogy taught within the classroom.  Nothing more.  It's a compromise made by Christian entities who lost their battle with Creationism that still attempts to insert religion into scientific theory.



remember the king of the hill episode where bobby does a sunday school report on "the amazing jesus"?



			
				Bobby Hill said:
			
		

> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I am the Amazing Jesus, son of God and master of prestidigitation! Has this ever happened to you? Your followers want a glass of wine, but all you have is water. Well, if you're the Amazing Jesus, no problem! Water into wine! It's a miracle! John 2:11. Thank you. Now you're going to need something to go with all this wine, maybe some bread. But how are you going to feed all these hungry people with just one slice? No problem, if you're the Amazing Jesus! Amen! It's a miracle, ladies and gentlemen! Mark 6:44. Thank you! Now, for my next miracle, I'll need a large wooden cross and a couple of volunteers.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Probably because these animals dont exist in a stream or lake like your typical bass?
> 
> The environment they live in makes it difficult to find specimens.


But, to be off by 65,000,000 years?  That doesn't make you the least bit curious of the other data we have?  Especially when combined with all of the other similar issues?





> Once again your understanding of evolution is lacking.  Just because a species thrives it doesnt mean the Dino version and todays version are the same thing (kind of like your examples of other surviving species).  The 65 milllion year version is called Macropoma.
> 
> While it is related to todays 2 surviving species it is not the same.
> 
> Not only are they not immune to evolution, since the exisiting 2 species are evolutionary related to the species dated 65 million years ago but are different, they are believed to be precussors to modern amphibians.


But, the species I listed aren't just related, they're virtually unchanged.  Virtually UNchanged.  And, we missed 65,000,000 years of their existence.  Were sure they were gone.  65,000,000 years of the history of the animals and plants just not there, thought to be gone.  65,000,000 years of it.

They may be "*believed to be* precursors to modern amphibians", but when we're off by 65,000,000 years of whether they even existed or not, that belief is on pretty shaky footing.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You keep sayign they are unchanged when it is not true.  The species today are related to the 65 million year ago species but they are not the same, nor did they exist 65 million years ago.


Our sources disagree, then.

Crocodilians are the closest living link to the dinosaur. They have changed little since they first appeared on Earth more than 200 million years ago

Army ants "represent an extraordinary case of long-term evolutionary stasis"

etc., etc.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You might want to reread the sentance about Crocodiles again and see if you can find the hole in your theory


You'll stress the word "changed", I'll stress the word "little".  :shrug:  We disagree.  That's okay


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> You'll stress the word "changed", I'll stress the word "little".  :shrug:  We disagree.  That's okay







> In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[39] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.[37]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)


Makes sense.  65 million years of evolutionary stasis (on the macro level) fits in perfectly with evolution.

And, I hear the cooling climate fits in perfectly with global warming.

And, the lack of scientific proof (or even logic) fits in perfectly with 9/11 truthiness.

The missing WMD's fits in perfectly with the idea Hussein had them.

Yup, it all fits........


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Makes sense.  65 million years of evolutionary stasis (on the macro level) fits in perfectly with evolution.
> 
> And, I hear the cooling climate fits in perfectly with global warming.
> 
> And, the lack of scientific proof (or even logic) fits in perfectly with 9/11 truthiness.
> 
> The missing WMD's fits in perfectly with the idea Hussein had them.
> 
> Yup, it all fits........



Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.


----------



## thatguy

OoberBoober said:


> Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.



he is also a birther 

funny he can see the idiocy in the other consiracy theories but not in his own


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.



I just like how they ignore everything in this thread (and anywhere, for that matter) that is too difficult to argue and stick with the easier stuff.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.


Ignore good sense - I can see why you believe in evolution.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> I just like how they ignore everything in this thread (and anywhere, for that matter) that is too difficult to argue and stick with the easier stuff.


Please demonstrate where I've done that....


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> he is also a birther
> 
> funny he can see the idiocy in the other consiracy theories but not in his own


Once again, you lie.

I believe, and have repeatedly stated openly I believe, that Obama was most likely born in HI.  My question is on the transparency, and the fact that we don't have a process and should fix that.

Don't you ever get tired of lying, especially about me?  Why do you have such a fixation with me?  I'm even in your sig line!    Your obsession is scary, but funny.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> Please demonstrate where I've done that....



Why bother, just refer to most of my previous posts that you skipped over


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Ignore good sense - I can see why you believe in evolution.



 Ohhhhh, so you're basing all of your arguments on common sense.

On Darwinâ€™s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

Seems like your "Common" sense isn't very common. Good thing scientists do not base their theories on common sense. The world is flat was common sense.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Ohhhhh, so you're basing all of your arguments on common sense.
> 
> On Darwinâ€™s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
> 
> Seems like your "Common" sense isn't very common. Good thing scientists do not base their theories on common sense. The world is flat was common sense.


60% of people not agreeing makes it uncommon?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Why bother,


I agree - why bother?


----------



## wxtornado

Okay, to summarize, we know that evolution; the gradual changing of organisms to adapt to changing environments, actuallly happens and can easily be demonstrated. Evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact. It began life as a theory in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species. Long since the massive weight of evidence has taken it from theory to fact - except maybe in backwoods environments. It is way too tedious to have to go further in explaining this to wilfully ignorant folks who prefer to adopt strange and archaic views of the world. So odd that these people predominantly reside in an advanced nation.

Take a look at the discoveries of a hundred and forty years ago and pray you are not struck down for eating of the tree of knowledge.

Thank you, you may close the thread


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I agree - why bother?



enjoy living in fantasy land with the faeries and unicorns


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Okay, to summarize, we know that evolution; the gradual changing of organisms to adapt to changing environments, actuallly happens and can easily be demonstrated. Evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact. It began life as a theory in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species. Long since the massive weight of evidence has taken it from theory to fact - except maybe in backwoods environments. It is way too tedious to have to go further in explaining this to wilfully ignorant folks who prefer to adopt strange and archaic views of the world. So odd that these people predominantly reside in an advanced nation.
> 
> Take a look at the discoveries of a hundred and forty years ago and pray you are not struck down for eating of the tree of knowledge.
> 
> Thank you, you may close the thread


We know MICRO-evolution exists, we're fuzzy on MACRO evolution.  Hell of a theory, almost no actual data.  Lots of potential and presumptive data, not much real data.

We also don't know why.  Could it be random acts of "sh!t happens"?  Of course it could.  Could it be random acts directed by a higher power?  Of course it could.

Thank you - NOW you can close the thread.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> enjoy living in fantasy land with the faeries and unicorns


No fairies nor unicorns in my world.  What color is the sky in _your_ world, Cliff?


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> No fairies nor unicorns in my world.  What color is the sky in _your_ world, Cliff?



oh woops.  the devil has two horns, not one.  my mistake.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> oh woops.  the devil has two horns, not one.  my mistake.


It's okay, it's not your first.  I'm an understanding person.


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> We know MICRO-evolution exists, we're fuzzy on MACRO evolution.  Hell of a theory, almost no actual data.  Lots of potential and presumptive data, not much real data.



We know that the theists are "fuzzy" on macroevolution, no idea why, and really, it doesn't even matter.  Be fuzzy all you want.


There are readers of these threads who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution" - they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> 60% of people not agreeing makes it uncommon?



Seems like you really need to learn how to read. Only 25% Do not believe in Evolution. Making any assumption about the 36% who didn't care is ignorant.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> We know that the theists are "fuzzy" on macroevolution, no idea why, and really, it doesn't even matter.  Be fuzzy all you want.
> 
> 
> There are readers of these threads who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution" - they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.


Note that you skipped my next line.

Is it possible it's entirely undirected?  Of course that's possible.

Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being?  Of course it's possible.  Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Seems like you really need to learn how to read. Only 25% Do not believe in Evolution. Making any assumption about the 36% who didn't care is ignorant.


If they can't commit to agreeing or not, they pretty much don't


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Note that you skipped my next line.
> 
> Is it possible it's entirely undirected?  Of course that's possible.
> 
> Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being?  Of course it's possible.  Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?



horse or unicorn. *Reasonable *people agree its a horse. This is your entire argument again.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> If they can't commit to agreeing or not, they pretty much don't



Maybe in  town where "Maybe" means "No".


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Note that you skipped my next line.
> 
> 
> Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being?  Of course it's possible.  Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?



Yes, I supposed that it could be directed by a supreme being, including, but not limited to, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Quezacoatl, Jehovah, Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament of the Bible (all versions), Thor, Hercules, or any other gods you care to name.....highly unlikely though.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> horse or unicorn. *Reasonable *people agree its a horse. This is your entire argument again.


Really?  You can't see a reasonable difference between the two?


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Yes, I supposed that it could be directed by a supreme being, including, but not limited to, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Quezacoatl, Jehovah, Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament of the Bible (all versions), Thor, Hercules, or any other gods you care to name.....highly unlikely though.


The question is never the likelihood, it's the possibility.

Closed mind to possibility makes some people religiouslike in their zeal against a potential truth.

That's all I'm saying.

Again, I just started the thread because I wanted to let people know about the show, but getting you to admit you have an open enough mind to see that there is a potential that a supreme being may be directing our evolution is a huge step.  You're actually open minded.  I'm proud of you!


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Really?  You can't see a reasonable difference between the two?



Nope, care the enlighten the class?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Nope, care the enlighten the class?



One is visible.  The other is a question with more than one possible answer.

Really, it's not that hard.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> One is visible.  The other is a question with more than one possible answer.
> 
> Really, it's not that hard.



False. Both are visible you just don't want to see one side of it.

Try again.

A horse is a concept and a unicorn is the same concept with mysticism attached. This is a perfectly parallel analogy even if you refuse to see it.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> A horse is a concept and a unicorn is the same concept with mysticism attached. This is a perfectly parallel analogy even if you refuse to see it.


A horse is a horse (of course of course).

The better parallel would be to ask why a horse is a horse.  Is it because
Random mutations of life (that we can't explain where came from) caused the horse to come into being over hundreds of millions of years from a lifeless planet with absolutely no pupose or guide or supreme intelligence involvement?
Supreme, extra-universal intelligence guiding in some manner any or all parts of the process?
Unicorns from your mind mating and breaking the horn off just to screw with you?
Okay, I really doubt the last one is even possible.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> A horse is a horse (of course of course).
> 
> The better parallel would be to ask why a horse is a horse.  Is it because
> Random mutations of life (that we can't explain where came from) caused the horse to come into being over hundreds of millions of years from a lifeless planet with absolutely no pupose or guide or supreme intelligence involvement?
> Supreme, extra-universal intelligence guiding in some manner any or all parts of the process?
> Unicorns from your mind mating and breaking the horn off just to screw with you?
> Okay, I really doubt the last one is even possible.



So now you are saying that between a horse and a unicorn... The horse is either a horse or a unicorn. Phew this is getting deep. Again, just because you refuse to see the truth does not make it less true.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> So now you are saying that between a horse and a unicorn... The horse is either a horse or a unicorn. Phew this is getting deep. Again, just because you refuse to see the truth does not make it less true.


Keep declaring I'm saying things I'm not actually saying.  It makes you look so smart.

(*hint to understand:  "3" above was a joke)


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> False. Both are visible you just don't want to see one side of it.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> A horse is a concept and a unicorn is the same concept with mysticism attached. This is a perfectly parallel analogy even if you refuse to see it.



People who truly believe the stuff that dude believes will never be willing to agree that it is a parallel analogy, because to agree to that would be putting the possibility that they're *gasp* wrong!  Plus believing Jesus turned water into wine or walked on water is not slightly related to this "mysticism" hocus pocus you speak of.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Keep declaring I'm saying things I'm not actually saying.  It makes you look so smart.
> 
> (*hint to understand:  "3" above was a joke)



Lemme break it down for you in a play by play.



> The better parallel would be to ask why a horse is a horse.





> Is it because
> Random mutations of life (that we can't explain where came from) caused the horse to come into being over hundreds of millions of years from a lifeless planet with absolutely no pupose or guide or supreme intelligence involvement?


 Currently explained reason of evolution? Horse
Horse + nothing else = horse


> Supreme, extra-universal intelligence


 Mysticism 





> guiding in some manner any or all parts of the process?


So it is exactly the same as above? HORSE again
Horse + Mysticism = Unicorn


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> People who truly believe the stuff that dude believes will never be willing to agree that it is a parallel analogy, because to agree to that would be putting the possibility that they're *gasp* wrong!  Plus believing Jesus turned water into wine or walked on water is not slightly related to this "mysticism" hocus pocus you speak of.


The problem is that it isn't a parallel.

If you want to suggest a parallel, you'd have to show a horse and ask what caused it to come into being.  Or, ask if it's even possible that a unicorn ever existed, even if we have no evidence of one ever existing.

THOSE would be parallels.  Asking if a horse is a unicorn, or an elephant, or a carborator is not a parallel.  It's a stupid question.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Horse + Mysticism = Unicorn


Horse + Mysticism = Horse

The "mysticism", as you call it, would be a part of horse creation, not something that changes what a horse is.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Or, ask if it's even possible that a unicorn ever existed, even if we have no evidence of one ever existing.



Ummmm... Are you really missing this one? Let me copy your line below with a slight change.




This_person said:


> Or, ask if it's even possible that a god ever existed, even if we have no evidence of one ever existing.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Horse + Mysticism = Horse
> 
> The "mysticism", as you call it, would be a part of horse creation, not something that changes what a horse is.



You clearly do not understand how analogies work do you?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Ummmm... Are you really missing this one? Let me copy your line below with a slight change.


EXACTLY!!!!  YOU GET IT!!  That's what would make THAT question a parallel, and your horse question NOT a parallel.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> You clearly do not understand how analogies work do you?


ONE of us doesn't!!


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> EXACTLY!!!!  YOU GET IT!!  That's what would make THAT question a parallel, and your horse question NOT a parallel.



Ok, maybe you understand a little math.

Lets spell out evolution vs ID in an equation.

Evolution IS a natural explanation of the basis of life.
Intelligent Design IS a supernatural explaination of a natural explaination of the basis of life.

OR

E = X
ID = X + Y

If we solve for X we get

X = E
X = ID - Y

Therefore if you take a supernatural explanation of ID away, you get Evolution, correct?

So now we have a horse and a unicorn.
A horse is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass.
A unicorn is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass with a supernatural explanation.

H = HGNE
U = HGNE + Y

starting to understand?

Solving for the common element HGNE
HGNE = H
HGNE = U - Y

They are the exact same thing.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Number 1 explains the Blind Cave Salamanders
> Number 2 Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?




See, there you go with motive.  Others have done that too.

If you can't understand the motive, does that mean it didn't happen?





> If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.


Okay, explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe.

And, unless you disagree with scientific laws like the second law of thermodynamics, there was a beginning and therefore a source of the universe.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Ok, maybe you understand a little math.
> 
> Lets spell out evolution vs ID in an equation.
> 
> Evolution IS a natural explanation of the basis of life.
> Intelligent Design IS a supernatural explaination of a natural explaination of the basis of life.
> 
> OR
> 
> E = X
> ID = X + Y
> 
> If we solve for X we get
> 
> X = E
> X = ID - Y
> 
> Therefore if you take a supernatural explanation of ID away, you get Evolution, correct?
> 
> So now we have a horse and a unicorn.
> A horse is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass.
> A unicorn is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass with a supernatural explanation.
> 
> H = HGNE
> U = HGNE + Y


I was with you up to here.

There's more of a difference to a horse and a unicorn than the explaination.  This is where your parallel falls down.  

Or, to put it in terms you might get

U /= HGNE + Y

In your explaination, there would be no difference between a horse and a zebra.  That would not be true.

starting to understand?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Is this thread about the Catholic Church approved Big Bang Theory or about Darwin and or Evolution?


A show on discussing Darwin.

It's not specifically about the scientifically peer reviewed and virtually universally accepted theory of the Big Bang, but that certainly has to play a part into any discussion regarding an intelligence or not.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I was with you up to here.
> 
> There's more of a difference to a horse and a unicorn than the explaination.  This is where your parallel falls down.
> 
> Or, to put it in terms you might get
> 
> U /= HGNE + Y
> 
> In your explaination, there would be no difference between a horse and a zebra.  That would not be true.
> 
> starting to understand?



But we are not talking about the difference between a unicorn and a horse. We are talking about... if you saw an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops, neighs, and eats grass, would you call it a horse or a unicorn? Thats it. The only fundamental visible difference between them is something invisible. Your answer is clearly a unicorn. However as for rational people, the zebra works just as well, because at least if it is a zebra the answer still has nothing to do outside the realm of reality.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> But we are not talking about the difference between a unicorn and a horse. We are talking about... if you saw an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops, neighs, and eats grass, would you call it a horse or a unicorn? Thats it.


well, I'd say it's most likely a horse then.





> The only fundamental visible difference between them is something invisible.


You mean like any tangible evidence that a unicorn has ever existed?  That's kind of a big deal





> Your answer is clearly a unicorn.


Why do you ask me questions if you're going to answer them, incorrectly, for me?





> However as for rational people, the zebra works just as well, because at least if it is a zebra the answer still has nothing to do outside the realm of reality.


But, not in the stem of the question (not one of the potential answers).


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> You mean like any tangible evidence that a unicorn has ever existed?


There is no tangible evidence god has ever existed. Which is precisely my point. When you have a choice between a horse and a unicorn, reasonable people pick a horse. That is exactly why ID is "ridiculous".


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> No, it's not that people don't realize, it's back to what you said in the middle part of this post about the difference in beliefs.  Someone was referred to, but Jews (for instance) don't believe that someone was Jesus.


That's the problem with those who won't read the rest of the story. The "who" of it is clarified in the NT. No rational person can deny that Jesus and only Jesus could have fulfilled the role of Messiah but they have to read the entire Bible. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  If there was absolute proof in those books, then why would people disagree?  Why is it that most present-day Christians originated from the conversion of the Roman Empire, and not from the actual events that took place?  Jesus was hardly believed in during his time.  So if he really performed all of these miracles in front of Jews and others, why didn't anyone believe in him?


Beta, people saw Jesus walk on water, raise people from the dead (including Himself) and they still wouldn't believe in Him. His own step brother James didn't believe in who He was until way after the Resurrection. What more could He have done for them?? The hardness of their hearts and heads caused it. 
Just like today. Many of us can see that Obama is the worst in history, why can't the others see it? 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> I think it's  impossible to offer up "proof" that "your book" is truly from God, but then again I think it's relatively impossible for any religion to do so.  Presenting historical artifacts and other stuff just shows that it was written in the era it was claimed in and that some of the stuff adhered to true events, but not that everything occurred just as it is claimed.  But heck, some of the books written these days write about true events that occurred, but add their own bits of fiction intertwined with truth.


Why is it impossible? I gave manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, statistical probability and prophetic proof. I can but I didn't even go into the NT where there are hundreds of fulfilled prophesies about Jesus from the OT. 


thatguy said:


> you haven't given any proof, the closest you have come is to say that its "oldness" makes it true, but the jewish book is older. And despite what you may claim, their book doesn't reference YOUR jesus, it references their messiah. the evidence that their messiah hasn't yet come is much *stringer* than evidence that jesus was truely the son of god.
> DO you beleive people when they vehemently proclaim that they are god on earth? when a modern day person proclaims they speak to god, are you a believer? I mean the book of mormon was written by 1 person who had dialogue with an angel and you wont believe his "true word of god".


The closer to the event, the more accurate the writings, would you agree? 
All of the Gospels and many of the other books were written less than 40 years from the time of the events they speak about. Also, the dead Sea Scrolls added creedence to many of the OT books. 
I'll say the same thing to you that I told Beta. You can't get an truly accurate picture of WHO the Messiah is unless you read the entire story. 
Biblical evidence is the strongest but you have to read it ALL. How many new truths become evident when "new evidence" shows up from (let's say) a crime? 
To answer your statement about believing in (other) people claiming to be god on earth, no I don't because I've studied the evidence about the only true God and I believe what He says. I was not always a believer in the Bible. It took me years of studying and learning about it for me to be convinced that it is really from God. 
The book of Mormon's author was a proven fiction writer and none of the things he's written about were ever found: 
Where's Moroni? 
Where are the coins he mentioned? 
Where are those cities he mentioned? 
What's the deal with the holy underwear??? Come on dude; present a better example. Joseph Smith was the Wikipedia of his day.

*P.S. Foodcritic. Don't fault me for what I'm writing here. I'm trying to establish a foundation for the truth. Without it, anybody can be right and no one can say otherwise. Just my way of answering your original question with a YES...*


----------



## ItalianScallion

OoberBoober said:


> There is no tangible evidence god has ever existed. Which is precisely my point. When you have a choice between a horse and a unicorn, reasonable people pick a horse. That is exactly why ID is "ridiculous".



The creation itself is screaming out: "A Creator". There's your "tangible evidence". While I can't take you to God to see Him as He is, I can show you evidence of His existence. 
You'll change your mind one day when you get to meet Him; I guarantee it.


----------



## OoberBoober

ItalianScallion said:


> The creation itself is screaming out: "A Creator". There's your "tangible evidence". While I can't take you to God to see Him as He is, I can show you evidence of His existence.
> You'll change your mind one day when you get to meet Him; I guarantee it.



Circular logic is hilarious.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> That's the problem with those who won't read the rest of the story. The "who" of it is clarified in the NT. No rational person can deny that Jesus and only Jesus could have fulfilled the role of Messiah but they have to read the entire Bible.


The "who" is OBVIOUSLY "clarified" in the NT, for those that believe the NT is legit.  For those that don't, it's just a book that has empty explanations that aren't necessarily true.



> Beta, people saw Jesus walk on water, raise people from the dead (including Himself) and they still wouldn't believe in Him. His own step brother James didn't believe in who He was until way after the Resurrection. What more could He have done for them?? The hardness of their hearts and heads caused it.
> Just like today. Many of us can see that Obama is the worst in history, why can't the others see it?


First off, people claim to have seen many things from many people all the time!  It doesn't mean they're true.  In fact, it was such a SMALL number of people who made the claims that it's on the same scale as the number of people that keep claiming they see UFOs, aliens, ghosts, and other sorts of "supernatural" stuff.  Is it true?  Maybe.  Who knows?  There are many people on both sides that believe them and don't believe them.  Sometimes, maybe some of them are telling the truth and others are lunatics.  Who is supposed to know?

Additionally, your comparison about Obama is ridiculous.  We won't really know if he was the worst President in history until we have a chance to look back on his term 20 years from now and see if anything worked or if we went further into the hole.  Plus he's only just begun.  Same goes for Bush...we don't know how good or bad he'll look.



> Why is it impossible? I gave manuscript evidence, archaeological evidence, statistical probability and prophetic proof. I can but I didn't even go into the NT where there are hundreds of fulfilled prophesies about Jesus from the OT.


You gave a bunch of stuff that didn't really add up to much of anything regarding "proof".  Sorry.  You can argue that people have hardened hearts all you want, but most people want to believe in one thing or another.  I've seen plenty of people start as Christians, research the Bible and other books, and switch to other religions too.  So if those people and others are all searching for the "right" religion, why don't they all stumble upon Christianity after their in depth search?  Because this "proof" isn't proof.  To that extent, I think quite a bit from the Torah has been shown to be true as well.  In fact, worldwide it seems like more people agree that the Torah is true than the NT.


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> Circular logic is hilarious.



yeah I'm noticing that most of the "proof" these guys provide is that since the New Testament says it's true, it must be true because the NT really truly is the truth.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> There is no tangible evidence god has ever existed. Which is precisely my point. When you have a choice between a horse and a unicorn, reasonable people pick a horse. That is exactly why ID is "ridiculous".


I agree there is no tangible evidence in a scientific point of view of an intelligent designer.  But, that doesn't make it ridiculous, that makes it unproven.

There is as much tangible evidence of an intelligent designer as there is of quarks.  Or, the first few microseconds of the universe's existence.  Or of life forming from a lifeless planet.  But, that doesn't mean it never happened.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I agree there is no tangible evidence in a scientific point of view of an intelligent designer.  But, that doesn't make it ridiculous, that makes it unproven.
> 
> There is as much tangible evidence of an intelligent designer as there is of quarks.  Or, the first few microseconds of the universe's existence.  Or of life forming from a lifeless planet.  But, that doesn't mean it never happened.



but to teach it in depth in school on a potential "theory" where you have absolutely no grounds is ridiculous.  You're pretty much making up everything at that point.  They mention quarks, the big bang theory, and other things of that significance as a little comment...but that's about as far as it goes.  For as much time as we took to learn about evolution and the various artifacts that were discovered, it would be ludicrous to break down and try to teach ID in schools with absolutely no evidence to base any work from other than religion.  Religion does not belong in the public school system.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I agree there is no tangible evidence in a scientific point of view of an intelligent designer.  But, that doesn't make it ridiculous, that makes it unproven.
> 
> There is as much tangible evidence of an intelligent designer as there is of quarks.  *Or, the first few microseconds of the universe's existence.  Or of life forming from a lifeless planet.  But, that doesn't mean it never happened*.



I dunno about quarks. But existence and life it self is tangible evidence of the last two. While first few microseconds is highly debatable, the fact that the universe exists is proof enough that it started. Unlike the existence of a god.


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> I dunno about quarks. But existence and life it self is tangible evidence of the last two. While first few microseconds is highly debatable, the fact that the universe exists is proof enough that it started. Unlike the existence of a god.



In the eyes of Intelligent Design, the existence of life as we know it is all the proof you need that some sort of God (designer) exists.  :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> but to teach it in depth in school on a potential "theory" where you have absolutely no grounds is ridiculous.  You're pretty much making up everything at that point.  They mention quarks, the big bang theory, and other things of that significance as a little comment...but that's about as far as it goes.  For as much time as we took to learn about evolution and the various artifacts that were discovered, it would be ludicrous to break down and try to teach ID in schools with absolutely no evidence to base any work from other than religion.  Religion does not belong in the public school system.


Neglecting a potential answer is silly.  Rejecting it without cause is irresponsible.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> I dunno about quarks. But existence and life it self is tangible evidence of the last two. While first few microseconds is highly debatable, the fact that the universe exists is proof enough that it started. Unlike the existence of a god.


Existence and life are the exact same things religious people discuss as "proof"  

Please provide the source of the universe.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> Neglecting a potential answer is silly.  Rejecting it without cause is irresponsible.



Just like Creationism was rejected by the courts and also not allowed to be taught in classrooms?

Do you believe that aliens have come to this planet?  Ghosts?  Demons walking this earth?  Do you believe that I can fly?  I believe I can fly.  It's potentially possible, I might be magical or have wings that nobody can see.  Do you believe in invisibility?  Do you believe that Jesus is still walking this earth?  Do you believe he could have had a son or birthline of little miracle workers that are walking this earth, but have been told to blend into society and not walk on water or turn bread into wine?  Do you believe that unicorns could potentially exist in some uninhabited part of the world, or potentially on another planet?  Do you believe that Dianetics could possibly be true and Scientology is potentially accurate?  For that matter, do you believe that any and all given belief systems regarding religion are potentially correct?

There is absolutely no way of saying that ANYTHING I said is false.  So what say you?  Do you believe that absolutely anything is possible?  There is no evidence that anything is impossible, it just simply hasn't been done or seen before.  If you believe all that, then I'll give you your argument.  I'll also consider you a lunatic, but at least you'll have your argument.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Existence and life are the exact same things religious people discuss as "proof"
> 
> Please provide the source of the universe.



Why does the universe need a source? Can it not just exist, or is that to hard of a concept? I know you are going to pull the 2nd law of thermo here, but keep in mind that only applies to the current universe. That rule does not apply to any universe before the big bang. Space in my undereducated opinion has existed since negative infinity, however the presently known universe "started" when a series of event(s) caused the big bang. The first law of thermodynamics implies mass cannot be created, therefor, logically it must have existed before the big bang.


----------



## FredFlash

Where did Cain find a wife?  

_Genesis 4

Cain and Abel

 1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. * She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [c] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
      Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
      "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

 10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

 15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

 17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.*​_


----------



## Beta84

FredFlash said:


> Where did Cain find a wife?
> 
> _Genesis 4
> 
> Cain and Abel
> 
> 1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. * She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [c] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
> Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
> 
> 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
> 
> 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
> 
> 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
> "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
> 
> 10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
> 
> 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
> 
> 15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.
> 
> 17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.*​_


*

Cain's wife is supposedly one of his sisters.  The claim is that the story (as with many stories) gave us information on a "need to know" basis, and we only "needed to know" about Cain and Abel, while Adam and Eve had other children as well.

I don't necessarily agree, but who knows*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> The "who" is OBVIOUSLY "clarified" in the NT, for those that believe the NT is legit.  For those that don't, it's just a book that has empty explanations that aren't necessarily true.


And, just because a lot of people don't believe it doesn't make it wrong either. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> Additionally, your comparison about Obama is ridiculous.  We won't really know if he was the worst President in history until we have a chance to look back on his term 20 years from now and see if anything worked or if we went further into the hole.  Plus he's only just begun.  Same goes for Bush...we don't know how good or bad he'll look.


Oh come on...We all could see that Bush was a bad one too while he was still in office but not as bad as the Obamination. I think it's pretty clear to most people about him with Jimmy Carter running a close 2nd.


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> I've seen plenty of people start as Christians, research the Bible and other books, and switch to other religions too.  So if those people and others are all searching for the "right" religion, why don't they all stumble upon Christianity after their in depth search?  Because this "proof" isn't proof.  To that extent, I think quite a bit from the Torah has been shown to be true as well.  In fact, worldwide it seems like more people agree that the Torah is true than the NT.


I've seen that too but it still goes back to a person's refusal to accept the truth. The truth has been made clear but many will still not believe it. It also has a lot to do with the large number of false teachers out there. 
God cannot rightly cast a person into Hell if they hadn't heard of Him so He has to give everyone enough evidence to believe in Him or not. 
It's seems screwy that people would believe the Torah and not the NT, since the Torah is in the OT along with some other books that the Jews follow which clearly prove that Jesus is the Messiah.


Beta84 said:


> Cain's wife is supposedly one of his sisters...


or a cousin...


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> I've seen that too but it still goes back to a person's refusal to accept the truth. The truth has been made clear but many will still not believe it. It also has a lot to do with the large number of false teachers out there.
> God cannot rightly cast a person into Hell if they hadn't heard of Him so He has to give everyone enough evidence to believe in Him or not.
> It's seems screwy that people would believe the Torah and not the NT, since the Torah is in the OT along with some other books that the Jews follow which clearly prove that Jesus is the Messiah.
> 
> or a cousin...



Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it's been made clear.  Again, let me refer you to Dianetics if you're so intent on saying that if it's written in a book then it *must* be true.

As for the Torah, it absolutely does NOT make it clear that Jesus is the Messiah.  From your slanted view using information from the NT it might, but that is predicated on the NT being truth, which is not a certainty no matter how much you want to believe that it is a certainty and has been proven.  You'd be wrong.  There is no way to prove it.  None.  So get over it.

And Cain's wife was possibly a cousin?  Mind mentioning who her parents were in that case?


----------



## foodcritic

OoberBoober said:


> Ok, maybe you understand a little math.
> 
> Lets spell out evolution vs ID in an equation.
> 
> Evolution IS a natural explanation of the basis of life.
> Intelligent Design IS a supernatural explaination of a natural explaination of the basis of life.
> 
> OR
> 
> E = X
> ID = X + Y
> 
> If we solve for X we get
> 
> X = E
> X = ID - Y
> 
> Therefore if you take a supernatural explanation of ID away, you get Evolution, correct?
> 
> So now we have a horse and a unicorn.
> A horse is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass.
> A unicorn is an animal that has 4 hooves, gallops around, neighs, and eats grass with a supernatural explanation.
> 
> H = HGNE
> U = HGNE + Y
> 
> starting to understand?
> 
> Solving for the common element HGNE
> HGNE = H
> HGNE = U - Y
> 
> They are the exact same thing.






    There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain)

I’m reminded of a story about newspaper reporting in the old Soviet Union (I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it illustrates a point well). A car race between the United States and the Soviets ended with the United States car in first, and the Soviet car second (you should also know only two cars were in this race). But the reporting in the Soviet Union stated the Soviet car came in second, while the United States car came in second to last. Perfectly true, and yet perfectly misleading.

You must be careful with statistics. For example, it’s possible the air in your room right now could spontaneously all move in the same direction at once, piling up in the other side of the room leaving you gasping for air. Possible, yes. But when calculated, the probability is so small as to be reasonably rounded off to zero (it’s not going to happen, so breathe easy).

A similar argument against evolution applies to the probability of events occurring which result in new species (mutations, natural selection and spontaneous generation). That probability is zero (when rounded off reasonably). It’s mathematically possible, but the expectation is so low we logically round it down to zero and state the event is never going to occur.

So the evolutionist has a problem — the odds of evolution occurring are zero. One tactic evolutionists attempt to show the theory isn’t ridiculous (i.e. mathematically impossible) is showing highly improbable events happen all the time — unfortunately, it’s usually through a misapplication of statistics. You see, simple logic and common sense tell you if (as they claim) improbable events happen frequently one of two situations is most likely true.

   1. The event really isn’t that improbable. Thus, our mathematical calculation of statistical odds is incorrect — an error in math has been made.
   2. Statistics have been misused or misunderstood, similar to our car race example. The facts and math are correct, but the application of that knowledge is wrong.


The Probability of Evolution - Frames of Reference


----------



## foodcritic

*probability vs reality*

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average- size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry,5 calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is

4.9 x 10-191.

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is

1 x 10-40,000.

    No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning [...] . There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.20

5#Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., and Olsen, R., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, p. 80, 1992. Back (1) Back (2)

20# Hoyle, F., and Wickramasinghe, C., Evolution from Space, p. 176, 1984. Back

Can natural processes explain the origin of life? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## foodcritic

Beta84 said:


> Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it's been made clear.  Again, let me refer you to Dianetics if you're so intent on saying that if it's written in a book then it *must* be true.
> 
> As for the Torah, it absolutely does NOT make it clear that Jesus is the Messiah.  From your slanted view using information from the NT it might, but that is predicated on the NT being truth, which is not a certainty no matter how much you want to believe that it is a certainty and has been proven.  You'd be wrong.  *There is no way to prove it.  None*.  So get over it.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> There are hundreds of ways to "prove" it.  AND based on those proofs one can provide a _reasonable_ answer.  Not endless diatribes.
> 
> What will your accept?  The link of verses that demonstrate the predictions about Jesus in the OT.  Will you accept the NT verses citing the OT verses as proof?  Probably not.  Your not interested it that.  You won't take the time to look at the verses provided.  You see you lack faith.  And in lacking faith you will reject the truth.....NOW Stay on topic (Darwin).
> 
> Old Testament prophecies of Jesus Christ


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> As for the Torah, it absolutely does NOT make it clear that Jesus is the Messiah.  From your slanted view using information from the NT it might, but that is predicated on the NT being truth, which is not a certainty no matter how much you want to believe that it is a certainty and has been proven.  You'd be wrong.  There is no way to prove it.  None.  So get over it.


Again, why would you omit "the rest of the story" if it is answered later in the book? And clearly answered by referring back to OT verses. 
(Genesis 49 v 10) from Judah. Jesus did.
(Exodus 12 v 21) speaks of the Passover Lamb (which would symbolize the Lamb of God or Jesus) that Isaiah 53 v 7 and John the Baptist spoke of, (12) no bones to be broken (later used about Christ) and (16) speaks of the blood symbolic of Christ's blood. 
(Numbers 24 v 17) "star and scepter" referring to Christ but we wouldn't know that without the NT.
(Isaiah 4) "Branch of the Lord", (7) Virgin with child, (9) the child is born...who is called the Mighty God..., (11) the root of Jesse, (52) the suffering servant, (53) carried our sins and transgressions, 
(Jeremiah 23) can you guess who the "righteous branch from David...called the Lord of Righteousness" might be?
(Daniel 7 v 13) "...son of man approached the Ancient of days...", (9 v 26) "The Anointed One will be cut off" guess who's crucifixion he's speaking of? 
(Micah 5 v 2) made it really clear. "from Bethlehem, ruler over Israel, origins are from old, from ancient times..." only one person fits that bill.
(Zechariah 3) "The Branch...will remove sin in a single day", (9) ...your king comes righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt the foal of a donkey", (10) from Judah will come the cornerstone, (11) betrayed with 30 pieces of silver...Guess who???
Look at the genealogy of Christ too. The Pharisees were asked: "whose son is the Christ"? *They answered*, the son of David, so guess who was called that many times? 
There are MANY other OT verses but I'm sure you're set against them so I won't waste your time with them. NO one can say God didn't make it clear. Only one who chooses NOT to believe in these foretellings can't see the truth written there. Go ahead and believe what you want. My work is done here and I won't burden you with any more Bible stuff my friend. Oh, and thanks for being civil with me. I really appreciate it! 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> And Cain's wife was possibly a cousin?  Mind mentioning who her parents were in that case?


Depending on how much time had gone by, it would be 2 of Adam & Eve's other kids who had married.


----------



## wxtornado

OoberBoober said:


> Circular logic is hilarious.



It's hilarious, and they don't even see it.


----------



## Beta84

wxtornado said:


> It's hilarious, and they don't even see it.



Exactly.  I'm 

Two posts from foodcritic and ItalianScallion are showing me verses from the NT that go back to the OT, or vice versa, and say that this proves Jesus did everything he did, that he's the Messiah, Son of God, etc etc.  What they are completely neglecting is the fact that the people who wrote the NT knew about the OT and could have simply written WHATEVER THEY WANTED and make it match stuff that was predicted in the OT.  Once the "predictions" come "true" with the writings of the NT, it "must" be truth.  That's illogical.

I keep harping on Dianetics because it's the most absurd example available.  But the reason is simple, the only way to show them how ridiculous they're being by saying the proof is irrefutable is by using a bogus piece of literature to use as a counter-point.  If there was a book written by someone else that took some of the predictions in Dianetics and made them "come to life", it would be basically the same thing.  I mean heck, all the guy had to do was read Dianetics and then write basically whatever he wanted afterward to make it look like his story followed along.  It's just part 2 of a book.

You guys are acting like there weren't certain "predictions" made in Greek mythology that didn't eventually come to fruition.  Sure there were!  How come we didn't stick with those Greek, Roman, or Norse gods if they all had the same "proof" from predictions coming true as well?

I'm not trying to say that you guys are wrong or that anyone is wrong...cuz chances are we're all wrong, but we'll probably never really know for sure during our lifetime.  What I'm saying is that your proof isn't proof.  All it would take to "forge" the NT is a group of people who collaborated to write their own stories having a deep knowledge of the OT.  At the same time, all it would take to "forge" the OT is a group of people who wanted to write stories about something and sucker a bunch of people into paying them money (kind of like what happens today!), whether to start a religion or because they were writing fiction novels that were eventually misrepresented as truth.

You guys disavow the Mormons, but it sounds like they have as much "proof" in their stuff as you guys seem to have in yours...but you refuse to acknowledge them as legitimate.  Catching our drift?  Probably not.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> 1-(Genesis 49 v 10) from Judah. Jesus did.
> 2- (Exodus 12 v 21) speaks of the Passover Lamb (which would symbolize the Lamb of God or Jesus) that Isaiah 53 v 7 and John the Baptist spoke of, (12) no bones to be broken (later used about Christ) and (16) speaks of the blood symbolic of Christ's blood.
> 3- (Numbers 24 v 17) "star and scepter" referring to Christ but we wouldn't know that without the NT.
> 4- (Isaiah 4) "Branch of the Lord", (7) Virgin with child, (9) the child is born...who is called the Mighty God..., (11) the root of Jesse, (52) the suffering servant, (53) carried our sins and transgressions,
> 5- (Jeremiah 23) can you guess who the "righteous branch from David...called the Lord of Righteousness" might be?
> 6- (Daniel 7 v 13) "...son of man approached the Ancient of days...", (9 v 26) "The Anointed One will be cut off" guess who's crucifixion he's speaking of?
> 7- (Micah 5 v 2) made it really clear. "from Bethlehem, ruler over Israel, origins are from old, from ancient times..." only one person fits that bill.
> 8- (Zechariah 3) "The Branch...will remove sin in a single day", (9) ...your king comes righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt the foal of a donkey", (10) from Judah will come the cornerstone, (11) betrayed with 30 pieces of silver...Guess who???
> Look at the genealogy of Christ too. The Pharisees were asked: "whose son is the Christ"? *They answered*, the son of David, so guess who was called that many times?
> There are MANY other OT verses but I'm sure you're set against them so I won't waste your time with them. NO one can say God didn't make it clear. Only one who chooses NOT to believe in these foretellings can't see the truth written there. Go ahead and believe what you want. My work is done here and I won't burden you with any more Bible stuff my friend. Oh, and thanks for being civil with me. I really appreciate it!
> 
> Depending on how much time had gone by, it would be 2 of Adam & Eve's other kids who had married.


lets go 1 by 1.  I numbered them

1- ok you're right, he was the only one from Judah.  What about David?  He was KING you know.
2- speaks of the passover lamb...anything in the NT could easily be using information from a very well known story in the OT.  Heck, with my knowledge I could probably write something too.
3- Lets fill that in a little.  "A star shall come forth from Jacob,  A scepter shall rise from Israel,  And shall crush through the forehead of Moab,  And tear down all the sons of Sheth. "  You're saying Jesus did that?
4- The stuff described in what I could find wasn't anything close.  Unfortunately, the websites I'm finding only seem to show me Isaiah 4 1:6.
5- let me grab 5 through 7 from Jeremiah 23 from this.  None of this stuff happened.  He was never a king in Israel.  Judah was never saved.  Israel still does not live safely.  Need I go on?
"5 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, 
       "when I will raise up to David [a] a righteous Branch, 
       a *King who will reign wisely* 
       and do what is just and right in the land.

 6 In his days *Judah will be saved* 
       and *Israel will live in safety*. 
       This is the name by which he will be called: 
       The LORD Our Righteousness.

 7 "So then, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when people will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' 8 but they will say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' Then they will live in their own land.""

6- speaking of the Messiah, which the NT believes to be Jesus.
7- "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is the name of a person in the Bible.  In fact, what else could "Ephrathah" refer to?
8- I didn't seem to find the exact stuff you're referring to.  I saw verse 9 actually mentioning the sin being removed in 1 day bit but that's about all.  I believe that's also a trait of the Messiah, so again moot point.

I know the supposed lineage.  But again, you're using information that was placed in the NT for a bunch of your "proof".  You CANT use proof from a book that could have been forged or fabricated!  I mean you can certainly say it is all the proof you need to believe it to be true, but you can't unequivocally say that it's fact.


----------



## foodcritic

Beta84 said:


> Exactly.  I'm
> 
> Two posts from foodcritic and ItalianScallion are showing me verses from the NT that go back to the OT, or vice versa, and say that this proves Jesus did everything he did, that he's the Messiah, Son of God, etc etc.  What they are completely neglecting is the fact that the people who wrote the NT knew about the OT and could have simply written WHATEVER THEY WANTED and make it match stuff that was predicted in the OT.  Once the "predictions" come "true" with the writings of the NT, it "must" be truth.  That's illogical.
> .



So you agree with us then that Jesus fulfilled the predictions of the OT's coming messiah..!  We are making progress.

Now we just have to demonstrate that the writers wrote and recorded events as they happened with out knowledge of what was in obscure OT passages.

Out of all the writers of the NT Paul would have had the most OT knowledge because he was a pharisee.  Paul does not write any of the Gospels.  He is converted AFTER Christ's resurrection.  He writes most of the epistles which are geared towards teaching.

So most of the predictions of the Christ appear in the Gospels.  So if I understand your theory.  The Gospel writers wrote in the predictions so they could prove that Jesus was the messiah ( I am assuming then that they must have not believed it or they would not have wrote it!! But then why write it if they did not believe it?)  This makes no sense. 

Why on earth would a reasonable person write something about someone that they knew/know was not true??  You see a reasonable person won't.  So the authors lied about the miracles/prophecy etc to con us in to believing a story they hatched.  However, they willfully died (rather tortuous deaths) for a lie that they knew they conjured up.  Again an illogical point.

Men will lie, men will write lies, men will not _willfully_ die for what _he know to be a LIE_. 

That is but just one example why your theory is wrong.  But remember this thread was about evolution....STAY ON TOPIC!


----------



## ItalianScallion

wxtornado said:


> It's hilarious, and they don't even see it.


Uh, who doesn't see? Surely not me...


Beta84 said:


> I'm not trying to say that you guys are wrong or that anyone is wrong...cuz chances are we're all wrong, but we'll probably never really know for sure during our lifetime.  What I'm saying is that your proof isn't proof.  All it would take to "forge" the NT is a group of people who collaborated to write their own stories having a deep knowledge of the OT.  At the same time, all it would take to "forge" the OT is a group of people who wanted to write stories about something and sucker a bunch of people into paying them money (kind of like what happens today!), whether to start a religion or because they were writing fiction novels that were eventually misrepresented as truth. You guys disavow the Mormons, but it sounds like they have as much "proof" in their stuff as you guys seem to have in yours...but you refuse to acknowledge them as legitimate.  Catching our drift?  Probably not.


Yes we do "disavow" them but we have something to "disavow" them with. We can't make up this stuff. Do you really think that God would fail to give us the "yardstick" with which to measure right and wrong with? 
So what do you use for a standard of truth? 


Beta84 said:


> 1- ok you're right, he was the only one from Judah.  What about David?  He was KING you know.
> 7- "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is the name of a person in the Bible.  In fact, what else could "Ephrathah" refer to?


1) David only fits part of the description. 
7) I've never heard that.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> It's hilarious, and they don't even see it.


No, we see you guys saying that ID is not science, because it can't be tested accurately.  And, then, you say evolution IS science, even though it can't be accurately tested.

We see it fully.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Just like Creationism was rejected by the courts and also not allowed to be taught in classrooms?


Relevence?

A specific set of religions' beliefs shouldn't be taught as science in public schools.  It could be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religion, which could then be viewed (by a very small, select, but vocal group of people) as a psuedo establishement of that religion.





> Do you believe that aliens have come to this planet?  Ghosts?  Demons walking this earth?


All of these things are certainly possible.  To suggest otherwise is very close minded - Dark Ages kind of close minded.





> Do you believe that I can fly?  I believe I can fly.


I believe you can touch the sky.  I believe, given a device that would allow you to fly (like a plane, helicopter, etc) you can fly.  To suggest that you could sprout wings, or just will youself to fly, I'd have to suggest that it is far more in your mind on certain pills than it is in the world of reality.





> It's potentially possible, I might be magical or have wings that nobody can see.


Keep going with that..... 


> Do you believe in invisibility?


Given that I can see my computer screen through all of the air between me and it, I fully believe some things are invisible.  Do YOU believe you can see your screen through all of the air, or do you not think there's any air between you and your computer screen?





> Do you believe that Jesus is still walking this earth?  Do you believe he could have had a son or birthline of little miracle workers that are walking this earth, but have been told to blend into society and not walk on water or turn bread into wine?


Of course it's possible...why not?





> Do you believe that unicorns could potentially exist in some uninhabited part of the world, or potentially on another planet?


Could. I find it highly unlikely, but it's possible





> Do you believe that Dianetics could possibly be true and Scientology is potentially accurate?  For that matter, do you believe that any and all given belief systems regarding religion are potentially correct?


"Potentially"?  Of course.  Likely, not really.





> There is absolutely no way of saying that ANYTHING I said is false.  So what say you?  Do you believe that absolutely anything is possible?


No, I don't believe absolutely anything is possible.  Things have to fall within certain natural laws, other than the first moment of the Big Bang where the laws didn't exist yet (according to most scientific explainations).





> There is no evidence that anything is impossible, it just simply hasn't been done or seen before.  If you believe all that, then I'll give you your argument.  I'll also consider you a lunatic, but at least you'll have your argument.


I would agree, there is no evidence that "anything is impossible".


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Why does the universe need a source? Can it not just exist, or is that to hard of a concept? I know you are going to pull the 2nd law of thermo here, but keep in mind that only applies to the current universe. That rule does not apply to any universe before the big bang. Space in my undereducated opinion has existed since negative infinity, however the presently known universe "started" when a series of event(s) caused the big bang. The first law of thermodynamics implies mass cannot be created, therefor, logically it must have existed before the big bang.


Actually, the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe after the big bang, after the first moment.

The second law suggests that eventually all energy will be equally spread out.  Therefore, the universe did not "always exist" per Nuck's vision of it being in it's current form.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't suggest a big bang AND a universe that always was and is and will be.  That just doesn't work.  Since the universal laws did not exist in the first moment of the big bang, that was when everything formed (including time), or "was created".


----------



## Beta84

foodcritic said:


> So you agree with us then that Jesus fulfilled the predictions of the OT's coming messiah..!  We are making progress.
> 
> Now we just have to demonstrate that the writers wrote and recorded events as they happened with out knowledge of what was in obscure OT passages.
> 
> Out of all the writers of the NT Paul would have had the most OT knowledge because he was a pharisee.  Paul does not write any of the Gospels.  He is converted AFTER Christ's resurrection.  He writes most of the epistles which are geared towards teaching.
> 
> So most of the predictions of the Christ appear in the Gospels.  So if I understand your theory.  The Gospel writers wrote in the predictions so they could prove that Jesus was the messiah ( I am assuming then that they must have not believed it or they would not have wrote it!! But then why write it if they did not believe it?)  This makes no sense.
> 
> Why on earth would a reasonable person write something about someone that they knew/know was not true??  You see a reasonable person won't.  So the authors lied about the miracles/prophecy etc to con us in to believing a story they hatched.  However, they willfully died (rather tortuous deaths) for a lie that they knew they conjured up.  Again an illogical point.
> 
> Men will lie, men will write lies, men will not _willfully_ die for what _he know to be a LIE_.
> 
> That is but just one example why your theory is wrong.  But remember this thread was about evolution....STAY ON TOPIC!


Nah, I don't think that he fulfilled everything in the OT.  On the contrary, one of the reasons why Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah is because he *didn't* fulfill the prophecies.  According to Christianity, he's supposed to fulfill most of them when he comes back.  According to the OT, he was supposed to do that upon arrival.  I was just making a comment, which I expanded upon in my response to ItalianScallion when he submitted some "evidence".  Christianity is focused on the "who" part of the prophecies and not the "what", but they just make it better by saying the "what" will be fulfilled next time.  How convenient.

As for your one argument to "debunk" my "theory", men who are conned or who are insane would die for something that they think is true, assuming they did in fact die for it.  Many things are questionable in history.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a relatively simple possibility.  Or if you need something that's relevant to the 1900s, cults died for their beliefs all the time.  Are all of those people correct in what they believed too?

I wouldn't have gotten off topic if I hadn't been brought off topic by the typical "well if you don't believe this then you are wrong because ID is true because of the NT".  So if the only shred of evidence you guys are offering to why ID is true is a book, there's only one way to refute your discussion...even if that's not the intent at all.  Mind you, when the only argument for ID you have is religious books, that's one good argument for it not being a science.  



ItalianScallion said:


> Uh, who doesn't see? Surely not me...
> 
> Yes we do "disavow" them but we have something to "disavow" them with. We can't make up this stuff. Do you really think that God would fail to give us the "yardstick" with which to measure right and wrong with?
> So what do you use for a standard of truth?
> 
> 1) David only fits part of the description.
> 7) I've never heard that.


From what I saw, there wasn't much more of a description.  What part did David fail to fill?

As for #7, look it up.  But again, it had 2 proper names.  If the person was "of Bethlehem" then what is that second proper name doing there, if not to be attached to the first?  I'm not saying it disproves anything, but I am saying that the line doesn't make as good of a link as you want it to and probably shouldn't be used as evidence.

Also if you don't mind (whether it be here or another thread), what's the measuring stick and how is it justified to disavow the Mormons?  This is more of a question of mine for educational purposes than to add to the debate 



This_person said:


> No, we see you guys saying that ID is not science, because it *can't be tested accurately*.  And, then, you say evolution IS science, even though it can't be accurately tested.
> 
> We see it fully.



can't be tested *at all*

still, you guys don't find it remotely convenient that ID became a theory not long after teaching Creation was struck down in court?


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> I believe you can touch the sky.  I believe, given a device that would allow you to fly (like a plane, helicopter, etc) you can fly.  To suggest that you could sprout wings, or just will youself to fly, I'd have to suggest that it is far more in your mind on certain pills than it is in the world of reality.
> 
> Keep going with that.....



so basically what you're saying is that some random person claiming to have supernatural powers is obviously insane?

Doesn't sound like you would have believed in Jesus.  So if I had people write a book about me, would that change your opinion?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> can't be tested *at all*


In similar fashion, neither can a macro-evolution that begets humans and fish and ficus from a single cell, nor can it suggest a likely source of that single cell.

We agree!!





> still, you guys don't find it remotely convenient that ID became a theory not long after teaching Creation was struck down in court?


Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.​
This is one of the lines from a poem of disputed origin called _Desiderata_.  One of the things I get from this line is to listen to what people are saying, not who's saying it.  Even from dull and ignorant, or even poorly motivated, people can come things worth listening to.

In other words, I don't really care who popularized the concept that there could be an intelligent designer of life, or the universe in total.  It's just incredibly silly, horrifically stupid, and egotistical to suggest that it could simply not be true.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> so basically what you're saying is that some random person claiming to have supernatural powers is obviously insane?
> 
> Doesn't sound like you would have believed in Jesus.  So if I had people write a book about me, would that change your opinion?


I don't recall Jesus flying in any of the stories surrounding Him 

Now, if you actually flew in front of me, or raised the dead, or raised from the dead, or cured blindness, or fed the masses with virtually no food to start from, or.....  we could talk.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> In similar fashion, neither can a macro-evolution that begets humans and fish and ficus from a single cell, nor can it suggest a likely source of that single cell.


They don't teach that part in school either.  They start with the transition from ape to human and focus on stuff that has some solid scientific evidence.



This_person said:


> I don't recall Jesus flying in any of the stories surrounding Him
> 
> Now, if you actually flew in front of me, or raised the dead, or raised from the dead, or cured blindness, or fed the masses with virtually no food to start from, or.....  we could talk.


It was just an example.  I could talk to you about some doctors that have raised the dead.  Again, stories that may or may not be true...if they occurred right in front of everyone, I kinda have the feeling that everyone would believe.  But I don't know, I guess most people could have ignored the fact that these things were occurring right before their eyes.  That's always the excuse, isn't it?  That people were just unwilling to believe or that their hearts were unwilling to accept the miracles performed in front of them?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> They don't teach that part in school either.  They start with the transition from ape to human and focus on stuff that has some solid scientific evidence.


That's the whole of Darwin's theory - that if you trace everything back, it came from a single source of life.  That as that life mutated, some things flourished and other things didn't, and "here's why...".

They DO teach that in schools.





> It was just an example.  I could talk to you about some doctors that have raised the dead.  Again, stories that may or may not be true...if they occurred right in front of everyone, I kinda have the feeling that everyone would believe.  But I don't know, I guess most people could have ignored the fact that these things were occurring right before their eyes.  That's always the excuse, isn't it?  That people were just unwilling to believe or that their hearts were unwilling to accept the miracles performed in front of them?


Some people are more skeptical than others......I mean, I still can't believe Clinton won a second term.  Many democrats think the Supreme Court gave Bush a victory over Gore, even though that's not what happened.

People just see what they want to see, sometimes.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> That's the whole of Darwin's theory - that if you trace everything back, it came from a single source of life.  That as that life mutated, some things flourished and other things didn't, and "here's why...".
> 
> They DO teach that in schools.Some people are more skeptical than others......I mean, I still can't believe Clinton won a second term.  Many democrats think the Supreme Court gave Bush a victory over Gore, even though that's not what happened.
> 
> People just see what they want to see, sometimes.



Fair enough.  Honestly, I can't speculate into the amount of information that has been researched on Darwin's theory.  However, it seems like something that can at least be explored and researched.

Clinton winning a second term?  He ran against Bob Dole!  That's why he won    You should have mentioned Bush's 2nd term, because he was re-elected with the lowest ever approval rating.  Which means Kerry was an even worse opponent than Dole 

You're right, Bush probably would have won even if they did the Florida recounts 500 times over.  It was the butterfly ballots that gave Bush the victory, not the Supreme Court 

Just to note -- you're discussing debatable issues that are viewed by minorities.  The whole Jesus thing was something that was only agreed upon by an INCREDIBLY SMALL minority.  Big difference.  Think of Christianity's beginning as a cult -- that's the spectrum they were dealing with.  Most people thought they were nuts.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Fair enough.  Honestly, I can't speculate into the amount of information that has been researched on Darwin's theory.  However, it seems like something that can at least be explored and researched.


THIS is exactly what I'm saying....explore and research the manner in which life originated and became intelligent with an open mind.

THAT's what I'm saying.





> Clinton winning a second term?  He ran against Bob Dole!  That's why he won


I would say it was a combination of Dole and Perot, since Clinton didn't even come close to 50% of the popular vote, but certainly Dole didn't make it any harder for Clinton.    Dole was McCain in many ways.  

My incredulity was at people voting for Clinton at all.  I can't believe they did it.





> You should have mentioned Bush's 2nd term, because he was re-elected with the lowest ever approval rating.  Which means Kerry was an even worse opponent than Dole


True, but it was the first time in three elections anyone won more than 50% of the popular vote.  Does that mean Kerry was that much WORSE a candidate?    I think so.  And, that lead directly to Obama   THAT will be the truely horrible thing Bush's presidency will be remembered for in the history books.[/quote]You're right, Bush probably would have won even if they did the Florida recounts 500 times over.  It was the butterfly ballots that gave Bush the victory, not the Supreme Court [/quote]I would say it was Gore and Kerry, just like it was G*H*W Bush and Dole, but....





> Just to note -- you're discussing debatable issues that are viewed by minorities.  The whole Jesus thing was something that was only agreed upon by an INCREDIBLY SMALL minority.  Big difference.  Think of Christianity's beginning as a cult -- that's the spectrum they were dealing with.  Most people thought they were nuts.


Not too many cell phone cameras back then.  The message was only as believable as the story-teller and time would allow.  That people still believe is a testament to Jesus - it's an unbelievable message that people choose to believe.  Makes you think there may be something to it after all....


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> THIS is exactly what I'm saying....explore and research the manner in which life originated and became intelligent with an open mind.
> 
> Not too many cell phone cameras back then.  The message was only as believable as the story-teller and time would allow.  That people still believe is a testament to Jesus - it's an unbelievable message that people choose to believe.  Makes you think there may be something to it after all....



Please explain how to research ID.  

As for the cell phones and cameras stuff, I understand what you're getting at.  Still, why is it that most of the people closest to where the events occurred still didn't believe he was the son of God?  Why didn't they feel he was the Messiah if all their teachings supposedly told them as much?  On the contrary, it only became more popular when it was spread to other parts of the Roman Empire (the parts that worshipped the Roman Gods) and then was popularized on Constantine's death, when he changed the religion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, even though he was not a Christian himself.  If that didn't happen, Christianity may have never went anywhere.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Even if you add Perot and Doles number together (popular theory was Perot stole the election from Dole) you'd only get 49.1% still not more Popular Votes than Clinton.
> 
> But 49.2% is a hella pretty close to 50%.


OKay, I was wrong.  He approached it with his second term.  You got me there.  If you add Perot, Dole, Donald Duck, et al, you'd exceed Clinton, but not just Dole and Perot.

Still didn't actually win, but he approached it.





> The only way Dole was like McCain was in losing.  One candidate was mildly Conservative the other was a typical RINO.


"Mildly" conservative is pretty RINO, IMO.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Please explain how to research ID.


Every time you do a scientific study of how life formed, how the universe formed, how we became what we are today - the process - you are researching ID.  That is, IF you are keeping an open mind that the process could have been directed by an intelligence.





> As for the cell phones and cameras stuff, I understand what you're getting at.  Still, why is it that most of the people closest to where the events occurred still didn't believe he was the son of God?  Why didn't they feel he was the Messiah if all their teachings supposedly told them as much?  On the contrary, it only became more popular when it was spread to other parts of the Roman Empire (the parts that worshipped the Roman Gods) and then was popularized on Constantine's death, when he changed the religion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, even though he was not a Christian himself.  If that didn't happen, Christianity may have never went anywhere.


Why do so many people think that mankind is warming the planet?  Why do people think what they do on so many things?

I have to admit that unless I saw most of it myself, I'd have been pretty skeptical.  I would not have been an easy sell.  I only believe because of personal experiences I've had, not because of any "evidence", and I think most people that _don't_ believe are the same way - they don't believe because they've not had the type of experiences I've lived through, and they simply don't believe others who speak of their experiences.  

We all have the free will to believe or not.  God doesn't effect free will, so it's not up to Him for you to believe or not.

If someone today said they were Jesus still walking the earth, and they could perform miracles, I'd probably see more of Madoff and Blaine in their stories than Jesus, and I suspect that's what people of the time thought.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> We all have the free will to believe or not.  God doesn't effect free will, so it's not up to Him for you to believe or not.



Logical paradox. How can a god be omniscient, and humans have free will? It is impossible. If a god knows the future, that means events are already predetermined and therefore your "free will" is merely following gods set course.

Free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive. You can have one but not the other.


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> Logical paradox. How can a god be omniscient, and humans have free will? It is impossible. If a god knows the future, that means events are already predetermined and therefore your "free will" is merely following gods set course.
> 
> Free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive. You can have one but not the other.


Not necessarily.  We could have free will to make our own decisions and God would just know what we have opted to do.  But I agree, I don't think God knows much of the future if we have completely free will.



Nucklesack said:


> And if you add Perot and Clinton they exceed 50%.  Not all that voted for Perot were Dolemites.


Nader was in the election too.  Clinton would have had over 50% with Nader voters, let alone the Perot crap.


----------



## OoberBoober

Beta84 said:


> Not necessarily.  We could have free will to make our own decisions and God would just know what we have opted to do.  But I agree, I don't think God knows much of the future if we have completely free will.



Then that is not "all knowing." The key being that "all", implying past, present and future. This is one of the biggest logical fallacies of any omniscient god. And while this is not where I got the fallacy from, here is a convenient list of them.
Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The plain and simple truth is, "all knowing" implies a knowledge of the future, and ANY knowledge of the future is a direct violation against the concept of free will and decision making.

I had actually planned on making a thread about this very subject.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Logical paradox. How can a god be omniscient, and humans have free will? It is impossible. If a god knows the future, that means events are already predetermined and therefore your "free will" is merely following gods set course.
> 
> Free will and an omniscient god are mutually exclusive. You can have one but not the other.


Not at all.

Time is a function of the universe (time is as set in the universe as energy, mass, etc.).  For God to be as envisioned, He would be able to manipulate time as well as any other issue within the universe, especially since He created time.

Therefore, seeing what is going to happen is like watching a repeat of a movie.  If you watch your favorite episode of Jon and Kate Plus 8 (I'm betting your a watcher of that show), does it change Jon's free will to leave or stay just because you saw it once already?  No, he had the free will, you already know the outcome, but you didn't suppress free will by knowing the outcome.

That's one potential explaination......


A second potential explaination is that every decision you make is already calculated in God's understanding, so no matter what decision you make it was already "known" (as one of your infinite number of options), as would every conceivable outcome from that decision, and every conceivable decision you make due to each of those outcomes.

Knowing wouldn't stop your ability to make your own choice.  Just like it doesn't suppress my free will because I'm male and therefore can't deliver a baby, it doesn't suppress free will for the decision to already be "known".

Good try, though.  You're not the first to try and fail with that logic, but it is a good try.


----------



## Beta84

OoberBoober said:


> Then that is not "all knowing." The key being that "all", implying past, present and future. This is one of the biggest logical fallacies of any omniscient god. And while this is not where I got the fallacy from, here is a convenient list of them.
> Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The plain and simple truth is, "all knowing" implies a knowledge of the future, and ANY knowledge of the future is a direct violation against the concept of free will and decision making.
> 
> I had actually planned on making a thread about this very subject.



make a thread, it would be an interesting topic


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And if you add Perot and Clinton they exceed 50%.  Not all that voted for Perot were Dolemites.


And if you add Perot and Donald Duck.......     Where are you going with that?  Clearly, not all those that voted Perot would have voted Dole without Perot.  Nor would those that voted Clinton have voted Clinton if the options were different.  We can go on endlessly with that one.

Clinton lost the election, but lost it the least.  That's clear and true.  I was wrong, he "approached" 50%.  


> There is a difference than a mild conservative and John McCain. Your attempt at meshing the comparison to the both of them is laughable, and dishonest


It's not dishonest.  I perceive them as being very, very, very similar.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Time is a function of the universe (time is as set in the universe as energy, mass, etc.).  For God to be as envisioned, He would be able to manipulate time as well as any other issue within the universe, especially since He created time.
> 
> Therefore, seeing what is going to happen is like watching a repeat of a movie.  If you watch your favorite episode of Jon and Kate Plus 8 (I'm betting your a watcher of that show), does it change Jon's free will to leave or stay just because you saw it once already?  No, he had the free will, you already know the outcome, but you didn't suppress free will by knowing the outcome.
> 
> That's one potential explaination......
> 
> 
> A second potential explaination is that every decision you make is already calculated in God's understanding, so no matter what decision you make it was already "known" (as one of your infinite number of options), as would every conceivable outcome from that decision, and every conceivable decision you make due to each of those outcomes.
> 
> Knowing wouldn't stop your ability to make your own choice.  Just like it doesn't suppress my free will because I'm male and therefore can't deliver a baby, it doesn't suppress free will for the decision to already be "known".
> 
> Good try, though.  You're not the first to try and fail with that logic, but it is a good try.



First explanation: That is not omniscience. 
Second explanation: that is not free will.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Nader was in the election too.  Clinton would have had over 50% with Nader voters, let alone the Perot crap.


But, the only point I was making is that NO ONE had 50% of the vote.

Clinton simply lost the least.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> First explanation: That is not omniscience.


  What would it be then?





> Second explanation: that is not free will.


What would it be then?  Where is the lack of free will?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> What would it be then?What would it be then?  Where is the lack of free will?



Dan Barker
In modern terms, the argument is formulated typically as follows[6]
The theistic God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. Personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance.
A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the theistic God does not exist.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Dan Barker
> In modern terms, the argument is formulated typically as follows[6]
> The theistic God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. Personal beings have free will.
> In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
> A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance.
> A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will.
> Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
> Therefore, the theistic God does not exist.


The "given" there is that God is a "personal being".

Please provide the religious source to this strawman argument.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> The "given" there is that God is a "personal being".
> 
> Please provide the religious source to this strawman argument.



 Read it your self. Freewill Argument for Nonexistence of God, by Barker, Freethought Today, August 1997


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Read it your self. Freewill Argument for Nonexistence of God, by Barker, Freethought Today, August 1997


I've seen similar.

They define what their perception of God is, then explain why God can't fit the definition they themselves created.

Some refer to that as a strawman argument.  Some refer to it as mental masturbation.  I merely suggest to you it's a pointless argument to define God in human terms to explain why He can't exist.


----------



## wxtornado

OoberBoober said:


> I had actually planned on making a thread about this very subject.




Been there.  You'll just see more circular reasoning, logical fallacies, and general gobledy-gook.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Been there.  You'll just see more circular reasoning, logical fallacies, and general gobledy-gook.


But only from your side of the argument.....


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> But only from your side of the argument.....



Then start a Free Will thread, strawman, and we'll see which side makes sense.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Then start a Free Will thread, strawman, and we'll see which side makes sense.


Been there, answered that.


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Been there, answered that.



Yeah, didn't thik so......


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Yeah, didn't thik so......



Created, just for you.


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> Clinton simply lost the least.



lost the least?  You don't need a majority of the popular vote, or even a plurality for that matter.  Yet another of your back and forth opinions.  You were just talking about how Bush won regardless of the Supreme Court stuff, yet he *LOST* the popular vote.  Gore had the *plurality* (48.4% to 47.9%), yet still *lost* the election.  So that doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Clinton *won* the election.  If no candidate had the required vote, it would have went to a run-off.  A candidate (Clinton) had the required vote and *WON* the election.  In fact, he *won* that election in convincing fashion, 379-159.  

The last time the election deficit was that large was in 1988, though Obama ('08) and Clinton ('92) were both close.  After looking at the results, I think you're confused with 1992.  Clinton had 43% of the vote in that election, compared to 37.4% for Bush (Perot had 18.9%).  The electoral vote was a resounding 370-168, though.

Talk about us being way way way off topic 



OoberBoober said:


> Read it your self. Freewill Argument for Nonexistence of God, by Barker, Freethought Today, August 1997



Lets say free will exists.  Lets also say that because free will exists, God can't be omniscient.  I don't see how that implies there is no God.

edit:  I guess it's talking about the definition of the Christian God.  It admits a "lesser deity" may still exist.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> lost the least?  You don't need a majority of the popular vote, or even a plurality for that matter.  Yet another of your back and forth opinions.  You were just talking about how Bush won regardless of the Supreme Court stuff, yet he *LOST* the popular vote.  Gore had the *plurality* (48.4% to 47.9%), yet still *lost* the election.  So that doesn't seem to matter, does it?


Lost the POPULAR vote.  Sorry, left out a word that I thought was obvious in my statement.





> Clinton *won* the election.  If no candidate had the required vote, it would have went to a run-off.  A candidate (Clinton) had the required vote and *WON* the election.  In fact, he *won* that election in convincing fashion, 379-159.


Makes you wonder what it would have been like, since he didn't muster 50% of the popular vote, if states like CA, IL, TX, NY, etc., allowed for their electoral vote to be split by electoral district.  I suspect those who win elections would have been far different.





> The last time the election deficit was that large was in 1988, though Obama ('08) and Clinton ('92) were both close.  After looking at the results, I think you're confused with 1992.  Clinton had 43% of the vote in that election, compared to 37.4% for Bush (Perot had 18.9%).  The electoral vote was a resounding 370-168, though.


Not confused, just thought it was a little lower (I thought it was closer to 46% in '96, vice 49)





> Talk about us being way way way off topic


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> So if the only shred of evidence you guys are offering to why ID is true is *a book*, there's only one way to refute your discussion...even if that's not the intent at all.  Mind you, when the only argument for ID you have is *religious books*, that's one good argument for it not being a science.


What a lot of people fail to realize is that we're all going to be judged by what is written in God's Word because this is the main way that most people can understand about God, so I see nothing wrong with "religious books" in that respect. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> From what I saw, there wasn't much more of a description.  What part did David fail to fill?
> As for #7, look it up.  But again, it had 2 proper names.  If the person was "of Bethlehem" then what is that second proper name doing there, if not to be attached to the first?  I'm not saying it disproves anything, but I am saying that the line doesn't make as good of a link as you want it to and probably shouldn't be used as evidence.


David called God his "Lord" and Jesus is "Lord". David wasn't claiming to be the Messiah and Jesus was (and all that it entials). 
Ephrathah was simply the area around Bethlehem. People from that region were called Ephrathites. Actually David, who also killed Goliath, was the son of an Ephrathite, Jesse (in 1 Samuel 17 and Ruth 1).


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> Also if you don't mind (whether it be here or another thread), what's the measuring stick and how is it justified to disavow the Mormons?  This is more of a question of mine for educational purposes than to add to the debate


Again, you have to have a standard of truth to prove something or else anyone can claim to be correct. The Bible and the lack of ANY evidence from Joseph Smith's claims proves he was a fake. Today all we need to do is an internet search of Joseph Smith and look up what he really was about. He was a known storyteller of fictional writings.


Beta84 said:


> I could talk to you about some doctors that have raised the dead.  Again, stories that may or may not be true...if they occurred right in front of everyone, I kinda have the feeling that everyone would believe.  But I don't know, I guess most people could have ignored the fact that these things were occurring right before their eyes.  That's always the excuse, isn't it?  That people were just unwilling to believe or that their hearts were unwilling to accept the miracles performed in front of them?


But that's exactly right. People see things right before their eyes and deny them. That's why many people of Jesus time hated him. Much of it was jealousy and some of it was political. 
Those doctors didn't raise anyone from the dead like Jesus did. Even the Apostles, who raised people from the dead, gave the credit to Jesus for the ability. 


Beta84 said:


> Just to note -- you're discussing debatable issues that are viewed by minorities.  The whole Jesus thing was something that was only agreed upon by an INCREDIBLY SMALL minority.  Big difference.  Think of Christianity's beginning as a cult -- that's the spectrum they were dealing with.  Most people thought they were nuts.


Not all "majorities" are right. Look at the last election....
And Jesus said exactly what you said. The kingdom of God started small and grew tremendously. 


Beta84 said:


> Not necessarily.  We could have free will to make our own decisions and God would just know what we have opted to do.  But I agree, I don't think God knows much of the future if we have completely free will.


How in the world can you say this? God doesn't know much of the future????
Again I'll ask you: what belief system do you follow so I'll have a better understanding of where you're coming from. 


OoberBoober said:


> Then that is not "all knowing." The key being that "all", implying past, present and future. This is one of the biggest logical fallacies of any omniscient god. And while this is not where I got the fallacy from, here is a convenient list of them.
> Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The plain and simple truth is, "all knowing" implies a knowledge of the future, and ANY knowledge of the future is a direct violation against the concept of free will and decision making.


I thought only Nonno and Nhboy were 100% wrong all the time. Now I see there's 3 of you in the running. Why is it so hard for you to believe that God knows everything, past, present and future? 
WHY IS "ANY knowledge of the future is a direct violation against the concept of free will and decision making"??? 


OoberBoober said:


> Dan Barker
> Therefore, the theistic God does not exist.


THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!!! It's finally come to light. Son, you need to trash your sources. They're leading you right into the garbage. See what I mean about BAD study habits???
Between Wiki and Dan Barker, you're surely destined for the funny farm. Read up on your god:

Hi-De-Ho! It's Dan Barker!


----------



## FredFlash

Did God ever forbid incest?


----------



## This_person

FredFlash said:


> Did God ever forbid incest?


:shrug: Worried about your parents' souls?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Maybe he's related to Lot?


Maybe.

However, God did pretty succinctly forbid it.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Its interesting you never did explain why Lott was NOT punished for bangining his Daughters


It's easy to explain why Lott was not punished:  I don't know, that's not for me to judge.

Perhaps he was.  The Bible is all you NEED to know, not all you WANT to know.  Maybe losing his wife was punishment.  Maybe being drunked up by his daughters was punishment.  Maybe he was punished and it wasn't told to us because it's really none of our business and meant nothing to the message being portrayed.  I don't know why he wasn't.  Didn't stop this from being clearly forbidden





> You ate your hat with this one before, did you bring some tobasco this time?
> 
> Incest is allowed as long as its a Father banging his Daughter. Just like the Just and Faithfull Lot.


No, I didn't eat my hat.  You did.





			
				Leviticus 18:17 said:
			
		

> 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.


Please explain how it is possible to sleep with your daughter if you may not sleep with a woman and her daughter.  If the daughter is your daughter, you slept with the woman, and therefore you are not allowed - specifically, well spelled out - to sleep with that woman (and your) daughter.

This would also cover a step-daughter.

When you can explain how a man can create a daughter with a woman without some kind of sexual relations with that woman, and therefore be able to sleep with his daugher, then you'll have made some sense.

Until, of course, you go with Leviticus 18:6'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.​which spells it out perfectly clearly as well.


Here's your hat......


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> What a lot of people fail to realize is that we're all going to be judged by what is written in God's Word because this is the main way that most people can understand about God, so I see nothing wrong with "religious books" in that respect.


I was merely speaking in terms of science.



> David called God his "Lord" and Jesus is "Lord". David wasn't claiming to be the Messiah and Jesus was (and all that it entials).
> Ephrathah was simply the area around Bethlehem. People from that region were called Ephrathites. Actually David, who also killed Goliath, was the son of an Ephrathite, Jesse (in 1 Samuel 17 and Ruth 1).


Now re-read your quotation.  It believe it said king, it didn't say anything about the Messiah.  That description could fit David, as he was in fact a king of Israel!  Also, David called God his Lord, because the Lord is his God.  I don't see any mention of Jesus there.  Lets not forget, Jesus didn't even exist!  He was merely a prophecy according to you, was he not?



> Again, you have to have a standard of truth to prove something or else anyone can claim to be correct. The Bible and the lack of ANY evidence from Joseph Smith's claims proves he was a fake. Today all we need to do is an internet search of Joseph Smith and look up what he really was about. He was a known storyteller of fictional writings.


I imagine there is as much "proof" in way of "historical evidence" when it was written as there is for the Bible.  You probably just opt not to see it.  I'm sure some of the Bible writers were also "known" for being storytellers of fictional writing.  I'm not saying they were or that Joseph Smith was, I'm just saying it's entirely possible.



> But that's exactly right. People see things right before their eyes and deny them. That's why many people of Jesus time hated him. Much of it was jealousy and some of it was political.
> Those doctors didn't raise anyone from the dead like Jesus did. Even the Apostles, who raised people from the dead, gave the credit to Jesus for the ability.


I dunno, if I saw someone do incredible things I'd either call it magic and be impressed, or try to figure out if there's more behind it.  I wouldn't start a witch hunt calling for their head.



> Not all "majorities" are right. Look at the last election....
> And Jesus said exactly what you said. The kingdom of God started small and grew tremendously.


We won't know if Obama was a better choice than McCain.  We don't know how Obama will finish his term and we certainly don't know if McCain would have done any better.  However, it probably would have been quieter given a Republican president and Democratic Congress.  But doing nothing may lead to our downfall too, so who knows.



> How in the world can you say this? God doesn't know much of the future????
> Again I'll ask you: what belief system do you follow so I'll have a better understanding of where you're coming from.


How can I say that?  Are you not reading this thread or the other thread?  I'm just making observations and comments on what I think is true.  Here's the best part -- I don't follow anyone's belief system.  I believe in what I think is true.  I'm not a sheep like you that gets spoonfed the "answer" and immediately runs with it and tells everyone else they're wrong.  I highly doubt there is ANY belief system that is 100% right.  I have just as good of odds with my own set of beliefs as you do in having your brain fed to you by someone else's interpretations.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Right because the Bible made sure to go into detail about how Just Lott was, and how wicked S&G were.  Now your grasping, the story about Lott and his daughters goes into GREAT detail about how the Daughters seduced him. It even goes on to explain how his Progeny went on to create nations. There is no implied or inferred punishment for Lott, thereby there was no Sin.


Wow, that's quite an assumption you make.

Moses lead the people for quite some time - until all others of his generation died off.  THEN, he was punished for his previous misdeeds.

You assume far too much.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Yeah except it isnt, unless you do more of your magical interepretation. You can claim Lott was punished, yet you  have nothing to base this on, and just assume it is so.


I said I don't know, but he may have.  That's a lot different than "claim"ing he was punished.  I make no such claim.  Not once.  Putting words in my mouth is your forte, but it doesn't make it true.





> I on the other hand posit that not only was Lott NOT Punished, according to the instruction Manual, he didnt do anything wrong by having an incesstual affiar with his daughters.


And, you're wrong, as demonstrated in Leviticus





> Really? So you found verses that expressely state a Father can not bang his Daughter?  Let us know where it states that a Man can not have sex with HIS daughter. Every instance of who a Man, Son, Daughter, Wife and Mother can have sex with is listed in LEV. so it should be easy to point it out.


It is, I did.  Leviticus 18:17.

Did you come up with a way a man's daughter with a woman could not be that woman's daughter, and therefore how it could be okay insofar as that verse goes?  Or, how Leviticus 18:6 would not be specifically violated?

You can keep suggesting it's not there, but when it is there, it just makes you look, well, not as smart as you actually are to not recognize it.





> Mother dies yet daughter still lives.  Kind of like Lott.
> 
> See the verses are VERY clear, and expressely detail out who you can sleep with.  No where does it state a father can not sleep with his daughter.  All other variants are banned except that.


Actually, once the mother dies, the daughter would still be the daughter of the woman he's already had sexual relations with.  It doesn't suggest that you can't do these things _simultaneously_ , it's that you should not do it, period.

All variants are banned specifically in Leviticus 18:6, and the one you have an issue with is specifically banned also in Leviticus 18:17.





> If the mother is alive.  Which would be the ONLY way you can lay with a Mother and her Daughter.


Simultaneously, yes.  The verse certainly doesn't suggest that.





> Oh your already eating one and dont need mine?  Thats ok i'll set mine right here, i'm sure you'll be needing it at some other time.


I've handed you your hat on this.  Your actively inaccurate interpretation doesn't change that.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Whats wrong got caught not reading the Bible again?  here the verses are again.
> 
> A Fathers Daughter is definitively and explicitly used in the verses, if Father/Daughter love was bad it would have called it out.  Since you claim it does where is it?


It continues to be at Leviticus 18:17.  It hasn't changed.

A man's daughter is still the daughter of a woman with whom he had sexual relations.  That hasn't changed, and it continues to still be true.

It also continues to be true at Leviticus 18:6.  A daughter is still a close relation.

It continues to be covered twice.

I'm not the one not reading it.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Who's doing the assuming?
> 
> How do you know Moses was punished?


Here:





			
				Deuteronomy 32:50-52 said:
			
		

> 50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. 52 Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel."


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I knew the verses, you made my point for me.  Moses was punished, Lott wasnt.
> 
> Since the Bible goes to great lenghts to detail about how Just Lott was, and how wicked S&G were. Continues with the story about Lott and his daughters goes into GREAT detail about how the Daughters seduced him. It even goes on to explain how his Progeny went on to create nations.
> 
> There is no implied or inferred punishment for Lott, thereby there was no Sin.  A little different than Moses eh?


No, not different at all.

They both sinned, they were both judged.  One story tells us of punishment, the other does not.  This does not imply that Lott was not punished, merely that _if_ there was punishement, it was not told to us.  That's all we know about that.

Well, that and Leviticus tells us all incest is wrong.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Was Lot banging his daughters and Wife at the same time?  (try to answer this one honestly for once)


I think I've answered it honestly every time - there is no suggestion that Lott ever was "banging his daughters" - whether during his wife's lifetime or not.  There IS a story of Lott being physically/mentally impaired by his daughters, and them having sex with him.





> Only in This_Persons alternative Bible verses.  In the one used by all of Christianity, a man can not have sexual relations with his Wife and her Daughters.
> 
> Lot didnt, he had sex with his Daughters after his wife died.


Where does the implication come from that it's okay after the wife dies?

Does that mean with all of the others, that if there is a divorce, it's suddenly okay to sleep with your aunt?

No, you're making #### up again, that's all.





> Really? Where does it state it, all other variants are there, why isnt Father banging Daughter?
> 
> Where is the Punishment for doing it?  All other variants are there why isnt Father banging Daughter?
> 
> (because it wasnt a sin)


Read Leviticus 18:6 and tell me how it's NOT a sin to sleep with your daughter.





> No what your doing is ignoring it, making up verses to fit your desire and refusing to recognize that your Bible is ok with Incest if its a Man banging his Daughters.


No, I'm accepting that a daughter of a man and woman means that she is a daughter of a man and woman.  There's not much interpretation there.  Nor is there any interpretation in "close relation".

You're trying the FredFlash version of legal expertise to get out of it being there, when it's therre as clear as can be.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Where is



I somehow mistyped the number.  32:50-52


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Are you God?  Are you speaking for God?  The Bible, written in Gods word by men Blessed with his presence, doesnt tell you this so who are you to make up passages to fit your need?


It tells me all will be judged, therefore they were (or will be) judged.

What am I making up?





> If you were a little honest you'd admit there is a difference.  One does something (Moses) that was expressely and clearly forbidden.  The other did not.
> One (Moses) was punished the other was not.


No, one's punishement was told to us, one's was not (if there even was any punishment for Lott).  That's all the stories tell us.





> Thats why it is implied consent.  The Bible is full of stories of those who broke the convenents of the Bible and were punished for it.
> 
> Yet in Lots case, he transgressed against Gods will (according to you, even though its not written anywhere) and his story is a postitive one.  The only negative in relation to Lot was his wife, not trusting him.  The time with his Daughters, their sexual dalliance and the birth of the Nation of Amon and Moab is all in a positive light.
> 
> But i'm sure the Bible has this grave edict about Fathers banging their Daughters (even though you cant find it), it goes on to tell you how great the result of the Incest was, yet just forgot to tell you about the punishment for the crime.  Must have slipped ol' Gods mind.
> 
> And Leviticus does NOT define incest as a Man having sex with his own Daughters.


Leviticus 18:6 specifically denounces it.  Leviticus 18:17 specifically denounces it (there is no exception made for "until Mom's worm food").

"Implied consent"?

No, all it tells us is that Moses' punishement is something we're informed of, and if Lott was we were not informed.  Anything else is an assumption you're making.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Ahh.... so you wont admit you made up your own interepretation.


No, I won't make up what's not in the story





> Where did Lot sin?  Where was his judgement?  You made up both of those


Lot sinned by having incestuous relations with his daughters per Leviticus 18:6 and 18:17. 





> Yeah but see heres the thing,  The Bible makes sure to point out the consequesnces for actions, but seems to have forgotten to show any negative consequences for Lot and his daughters love nest.


So?





> It specifically says Fathers are not to have sexual relations with their Daughters?  Are you sure about that?  Lev 18: specifically calls out Fathers Daughters in a few verses, but is strangely silent when it deals with Fathers banging their Daughters.  Wonder why?


You can't accept that a daughter of a man and woman is the daughter of both the man and the woman?  That's the only thing I am getting out of your consistent protestations.

Well, that, and you don't see a daughter as a close relation, per 18:6.





> Tell you what, find a verse that is comparable to _Do not have sexual relations with your daughter _,_Do not have sexual relations with your Father_, _Do not have sexual relations with your Mothers Husband_ and i'll retract the statements.


Lev 18:6.  Or, Lev 18:17.

I await your retraction





> Your so sure, it should be an easy verse to find.


It was





> Kind of like your assumption that its a sin and they were punished.


It's no assumption it's a sin, it's right there in Lev 18:6 and 18:17.

Neither is it a claim of mine anyone was punished.  My claim was that the judge of us all judged.  I specifically went out of my way to suggest I don't know if there was any punishment.

Putting words into my mouth does not make them my words.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Nah your Alternative Reality is all your own.
> 
> Lev 18: specifically calls out Fathers Daughters in a few verses, but is strangely silent when it deals with Fathers banging their Daughters. Wonder why?
> 
> Tell you what, find a verse that is comparable to Do not have sexual relations with your daughter ,Do not have sexual relations with your Father, Do not have sexual relations with your Mothers Husband and i'll retract the statements.



6 " 'No one is to approach *any close relative *to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. 



Is a daughter not a close reletive?  


17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with *both a woman and her daughter*.



Is the woman you had sexual relations with, and created the daughter, not a woman and daughter?  You know, the ones with whom you're not supposed to have sexual relations with both?










I continue to await your retraction.  You can't get out of this, you're just wrong.  It's okay to admit you're wrong when you are, and you are.  There's no special "until the older one is dead" clause, and you just can't make one up.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Beta84 said:


> It believe it said king, it didn't say anything about the Messiah.  That description could fit David, as he was in fact a king of Israel!  Also, David called God his Lord, because the Lord is his God.  I don't see any mention of Jesus there.  Lets not forget, Jesus didn't even exist!  He was merely a prophecy according to you, was he not?


Yes, the King part did fit David, but not the Messiah part. The fact that Jesus was the only one called "The Christ" or Messiah should be proof enough.
And Jesus DID exist but not in human form. He is God and always has been. 
That's where the Lord and God part fits in. If you won't believe that, of course it won't make sense to you. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> We won't know if Obama was a better choice than McCain.  We don't know how Obama will finish his term and we certainly don't know if McCain would have done any better.


You and I are smart enough to know that either candidate would be a bad choice for America. Even before they got into office. I could tell this just by listening to their speeches. 


			
				Beta84 said:
			
		

> I'm just making observations and comments on what I think is true.  Here's the best part -- I don't follow anyone's belief system.  I believe in what I think is true.  I'm not a sheep like you that gets spoonfed the "answer" and immediately runs with it and tells everyone else they're wrong.  I highly doubt there is ANY belief system that is 100% right.  I have just as good of odds with my own set of beliefs as you do in having your brain fed to you by someone else's interpretations.


So then you have just as much chance of being wrong as anyone else. In fact, your opinion is "someone else's" when you think about it. This is the very reason why there has to be a standard for life. Look at what you and I and the Dems and Repubs think is right and look at how many things are being ruined because of the different "opinions". We'd never survive if everyone did whatever they thought was "ok"...notice I didn't say "correct"? 


Nucklesack said:


> Its interesting you never did explain why Lott was NOT punished for bangining his Daughters. Incest is allowed as long as its a Father banging his Daughter.


Don't you think that Lot went through enough turmoil knowing that his "grandkids" would be bitter enemies all of their lives? The Ammonites and the Moabites were worse that the Hatfields and McCoys.
You also have to remember that Lot was technically raped by his daughters so why should HE be punished? 
Sorry ole buddy but your hat is still on crooked. You've been told about the story of Lot before and, as usual, you choose not to agree with it.


----------



## Beta84

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes, the King part did fit David, but not the Messiah part. The fact that Jesus was the only one called "The Christ" or Messiah should be proof enough.
> And Jesus DID exist but not in human form. He is God and always has been.
> That's where the Lord and God part fits in. If you won't believe that, of course it won't make sense to you.


Well I'd need to look at the quote, but I don't think the one we're discussing said anything except King.  But the only person referred to as Messiah in the OT was the Messiah.  To you, that's Jesus.  To me, that's not.  And I don't think "The Christ" was mentioned in the OT but I don't really remember.



> So then you have just as much chance of being wrong as anyone else. In fact, your opinion is "someone else's" when you think about it. This is the very reason why there has to be a standard for life. Look at what you and I and the Dems and Repubs think is right and look at how many things are being ruined because of the different "opinions". We'd never survive if everyone did whatever they thought was "ok"...notice I didn't say "correct"?


There's a difference between politics and religion.  In politics, the discussion is about what works for the country, state, city, etc.  If you ignore it, you go bankrupt, crime erupts, poverty, etc.  In religion, that stuff doesn't occur during your lifetime.  Sure, if you're wrong then maybe you'll burn in eternal hellfire or something, but it is what it is.  I do believe that religion can help dictate a standard for life in terms of how to treat people and some general morals, but I think a lot of that is similar from religion to religion.  In my opinion, that's what's most important...how you act, how you treat people, etc...and the rest will take care of itself.


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Ahh.... so you wont admit you made up your own interepretation.
> Where did Lot sin?  Where was his judgement?  You made up both of those
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but see heres the thing,  The Bible makes sure to point out the consequesnces for actions,
> 
> 
> 
> Often times that is true.....so what?
> 
> 
> 
> but seems to have forgotten to show any negative consequences for Lot and his daughters love nest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know that to be true.  Not to mention the fact that Lot does have a sort of victim role in this story.  You are assuming that because it may not be apparent to us as readers of the story.  We don't know the nuances of the man's life (depression, anger, frustration) that may have plagued him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It specifically says Fathers are not to have sexual relations with their Daughters?  Are you sure about that?  Lev 18: specifically calls out Fathers Daughters in a few verses, but is strangely silent when it deals with Fathers banging their Daughters.  Wonder why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard a LOT of stupid arguments over time..and I don't think your stupid in any way.  But to continue to believe/propagate the notion that children don't fall into the class of close relatives make you look like a horse's buttocks on par with chicken little.....just sayin.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Its a modus operandi, in the case of Lot there is no punishment (Lot or his Daughters).  The fact that the story continues on and his progeny are displayed throughout the remainder verses, Joseph (Moab) and David (Ammon) are both important, is implied consent.


You infer it, but that's not what the person would infer from that who puts the whole thing together with knowing it was a sin.  They'd merely assume that judgement was God's, not theirs. 





> Where is the punishment then?  You dont know that he was punished either.  Since the progeny are treated favorably in the Bible, its kind of hard to make the argument it was a Sin


The fact it's specifically called out as something one is not to do makes it easy to call it a sin.  That you don't know he was punished means - you don't know he was punished.  What it does NOT mean is that he wasn't punished.





> Both yours and This_Persons argument is overlooking a crucial issue to this argument.  Why does the Lev 18:?? verses cover every variance of incest except for Fathers and their Daughters?


Because it does.  Lev 18:17.  There's no way for a man's daughter to not be of a woman with whom he's had sexual relations, and he may not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter.

That you can't put together that a man's daughter came from the man having sexual relations with a woman, and therefore he can't have sexual relations with the daughter per Lev 18:17 doesn't mean it's not there.  It's CLEARLY there.





> This_Person insists 18:6 covers it, if so why do the remaining verses spell out, in detailed form, all the variations EXCEPT for Fathers having sexual relations with their own Daughters?


Because your question presupposes that 18:17 doesn't cover it.  It does cover it, which makes your question inaccurate in its stem.





> As much as This_Person tries to claim 18:17 covers it, it only states Mother *and *Daughter, if Mom is dead (in the case of Lot) you wouldnt be having sexual relations with Mother *and *Daughter, just the daughter.


There's no stated nor implied time limit.  If you've had sexual relations with the mother, you can't ever have sexual relations with her daughter.

I mean, do you really _also_ read into it that, if your son should die, you can have sex with his widow? (18:15)

Or, once your father dies, his sister is no longer your aunt (another close relative), so you can go after your aunt once your dad dies? (18:12)

The answer to those, by the way, is no.  Just like having sexual relations with your daughter.

You're making stuff up.  It's that simple.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And your doing it yourself by creating a punishment that doesnt exist.  The fact of the matter is, unlike Moses, Lot was not punished for his actions, and the result of the Incest went on to be featured further on in the Bible verses.


Well, I didn't know you'd established that as fact.  I thought we both agreed that we didn't know if there was a punishment or not, since it doesn't say there was.

What verse did you find that establishes the fact that no punishment exists?  Or, are you making #### up again?





> If 18:6 covers it then why do the remainder verses spell out the variations? Because 18:6 doesnt cover it, it just tells you that incest is wicked, the remainder verses then go on to describe what is considered Incest.


The rest of the verses expound on the issue.  If a daughter is not a close relative, what is she, in your view?





> 18:17 doesnt cover you either since, the verse only covers having sex with Both a mother and a daughter.  Lot wasnt doing that, and wasnt sinning.


So, it has to be a three way?  Or, just on the same day?  Same week?  Same month?  Same year?

No, it says don't, and it means don't.  Even if Mom dies - there's no "until one perishes" caveat here at all.





> For the fifth or sixth time, why are all variations specifically called out except Fathers havign sexual relations with thier own daughter?


For the gazillionth time, it is covered.  18:6 covers it (unless, as in your world, a daughter is not a "close relation"), and, 18:17 covers it specifically (unless, as in your world, you had a daughter with a woman without actually impregnating that woman).





> So where is the verse that states:
> 
> 'Do not dishonor your mother by having sexual relations with your
> father. He is your father; do not have relations with him
> "'Do not have sexual relations with your mothers husbaand; that would
> dishonor your mother.
> note switch the gender and they are specifically called out in Lev 18
> Because it doesnt, while your attempting to infer your own alternative to the verses, Lev 18:9 specifically calls out a Fathers Daughter, if Lev 18:17 wanted to cover the same it would have used the same context.  It doesnt because its not forbidden (no matter how you attempt to twist it).
> You claiming it doesnt make it so.


This was God telling Moses to pass the law to the Isrealites.  In the custom of that situation, God would not have been speaking to the women, He would have been speaking to the men.  The men were the leaders, the teachers, the role models to be emulated.  This is the context you seem to not get, or choose to not get.





> Use your Bible and tell me where it forbids a Father having sexual relations with his Daughter.  Do not interpret it, do not infer it, and do not attempt to create another eden to support your alternative reality.


Lev 18:6.  If that's not specific enough for you, Lev 18:17.

When you can show how a man has sexual relations with a woman's daughter, of whom he is the father, without having had sexual relations with that woman - then you'll have something.  You can't do it, science can sorta do it now (with the law already established and understood so it would still be wrong), so that makes you wrong.  Just accept that, and you'll be much happier.





> The Bible has 3 instances of incest with no consequences and because the children were featured in future verses carried positive innotations.
> Cain and his Wife  Show me the verse that says Cain's wife was incestuous with him
> Abraham and Sarah
> Lott and his daughters


That the consequence isn't described does not mean there is no consequence.





Still







> Are you sure about that?
> 
> I've cited numerous times the verses from the Bible that expressely, descriptively and explicitly the variations of incest that are forbidden.  You have made up some sin that doesnt exist.


I'm positive you're making up this issue.  It's clearly forbidden, and you choose to not accept that.


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> Notice you ignored the other incestous relationships extolled upon in the Bible.
> 
> Where did Cains' wife come from?  (Be sure to have some supporting evidence)



Here we go again

bwahahahahahaha


----------



## Zguy28

*Incest*

Leviticus 18:6 from the NET Bible.



> “‘No man is to approach any close relative¹ to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the Lord.



NET © Notes	

1 tn Heb *“Man, man shall not draw near to any flesh (שְׁאֵר, shÿ’er) of his body/flesh (בָּשָׂר, basar)*.” The repetition of the word “man” is distributive, meaning “any (or “every”) man” (GKC 395-96 §123.c; cf. Lev 15:2). The two words for “flesh” are combined to refer to emphasize the physical familial relatedness (see J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 282, and B. A. Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 119).


Seems pretty clear. Unless you don't consider a daughter to be biologically "close" to a father? (In which case you need more help than we can give you.)


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> So you found the verses that state (or similiar):
> 
> 'Do not dishonor your mother by having sexual relations with your
> father. He is your father; do not have relations with him
> "'Do not have sexual relations with your mothers husbaand; that would
> dishonor your mother
> Cool, can you let the rest of us know where it is?


Lev 18:6





> And while God was talkign to Moses, why didnt he tell Fathers not to bang their own daughters?  He told men not to do other things with their Fathers Daughters (Sisters) why did this one slip?
> 
> All other variations are covered, they are expressely and explicitly detailed, yet for some strange reason God couldnt figure out how to say Fathers dont have sexual relations with your daughters?


He did, Lev 18:6 and Lev 18:17





> Because it wasnt forbidden, otherwise you'd have a paradox with Lot.


Nope, it was covered.  Even for Lott.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> 18:6 tells you Incest is wicked.
> 
> All the verses after that, describe what incest is.  Unlike today, back then sex with your daughters wasnt forbidden.
> 
> And that just happes to be the missing variation; Father having sex with his own daughter is missing from all the variations explicitly and expressely detailed.


so, is a daughter a close relation or not?

Is your daughter a daughter of a woman with whom you've had sexual relations, or not?


If she is either, it is covered.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Notice you ignored the other incestous relationships extolled upon in the Bible.
> 
> Where did Cains' wife come from?  (Be sure to have some supporting evidence)


Ah, but putting words into or out of my mouth doesn't make them my words.     Still......


I answered.  I said that lack of being informed of consequences doesn't mean there was a lack of consequences.


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> Its been fun watching him try and explain why something is forbidden without having the verses to actually back it up.
> 
> Dunno if you've read his alternative version, that only he knows about, of Eden



oh no, i am compeletey familair with teh gospels of this_person 

one fo the many reasons TP is the only person i have ever put on ignore. when he is losing an argument he just makes shiat up and repeats it again and again as if the repetition will make his insanity more valid


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman
> 
> Eve bore Adam the first son Cain
> 
> Cain and his Wife had a son, but where did she come from?
> 
> We know Cains wife was his sister or at least a neice due to


Based on the verse, which is more accurately translated as "would become the mother....", and (in context) compare it with the Noah story, Eve _*would*_ become the mother of all living.

I dont' know from where she came, but I know the first mention of any siblings for Cain came long after he married.  And, we know of no wife nor children to Abel.  Thus, we do not know from whence his wife came.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> oh no, i am compeletey familair with teh gospels of this_person
> 
> one fo the many reasons TP is the only person i have ever put on ignore. when he is losing an argument he just makes shiat up and repeats it again and again as if the repetition will make his insanity more valid


You have me on ignore   BUT, you pretend to quote me in your sig line.


You're scarily obsessed with me.  Why else are you posting in this thread.

You're a sick, sick individual.


----------



## thatguy

this_person said:


> This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


>


How'd you know one of those answered you?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You and This_person have the same problem, your trying to compare todays values to when the Bible was written.  It doesnt matter what todays standards of Incest are, the Bible doesnt hold Father Daughter love as incest.


I'm pretty sure that it's not today's "values" that are the issue.

Perhaps you know that somehow, someway back then men had daughters with women without having sexual relations with them, and then considered the daughters not "close relations", thereby making 18:6 and 18:17 not be pertinent to fathers and daughters.

I thought it was the same process then as today.  Is that your take, that fathers became fathers differently back then, and weren't close relations with their daughters?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Noop that just tells you incest is wrong


so, daughters aren't close relations with fathers?





> Nope Lot was safe since Momma was salt


You found a verse that limits the timeline of the prohibition?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Where was Lot punished?


That we aren't told of Lot's punishment does not mean he was not punished.

Ours is not to judge, so why would we know?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That is not what it states, twist it all you want, you can not have sex with Mom and the Daughter.  Lot was ok since Mom was table salt.


So, Lot's daughters weren't close relations?

You found a verse saying there's a time limit (until momma dies) on the prohibition?


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> Well you had a alternative



now how would eve "become mother of all living" and not be the mother of cains wife?

sure doens't make this_person's retarded gospel of the alternate universe any more likely


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> When Lot and his daughters did the deed, was he also doing his wife?


Did you come up with an alternative version that requires mom to be alive?





> And here you go with your idiotic take on things.  Society today holds women in much higher regard than they were back in Biblical times.


I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked, nor the question at hand.

Are fathers and daughters "close relations"?  If so, 18:6 handles it.

If, in your world, fathers and daughters are NOT close relations, then, do fathers have daughters pretty much only with women with whom they have sexual relations?  If so, 18:17 answers the incest question.  If not, your alternate reality is so far gone you can't be helped.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Should be easy to determine, where is the punishment for the acts that were committed by Lot and his daughters?  All the other incest ones are there, where's that one?


How many times do you need the same answer?


There is no mention of a punishement.  That there is no mention of a punishement does not in any way imply there was no punishement.


----------



## Zguy28

Nucklesack said:


> NET?  is that an approved version of the Bible?  I've been refrencing the NIT version.


The NET bible is a widely recognized translation.



> Try to keep up, This_Person is already struggling with the topic.
> 
> Lev 18:6 tells you incest is wrong.  (with us so far?)
> 
> 
> You and This_person have the same problem, your trying to compare todays values to when the Bible was written.  It doesnt matter what todays standards of Incest are, the Bible doesnt hold Father Daughter love as incest.


Funny how today's values somehow must have traveled backward in time to ancient Mesopotamia then huh?

Incest with a daughter is condemned in the Code of Hammurabi. 

The Avalon Project : Babylonian Law--The Code of Hammurabi.


----------



## Zguy28

Nucklesack said:


> Should be easy to determine, where is the punishment for the acts that were committed by Lot and his daughters?  All the other incest ones are there, where's that one?


If you are looking for it in the Law given at Sinai, you won't find it specifically, only in Lev 18:6 where it says ALL CLOSE RELATIVES.

Lot's situation happened also 400 years or so before the Levitical laws were given.

Regardless, the story of Lot's daughters doesn't demand an answer, it is an answer in itself. It is only recorded so that readers will know where the Moabites and Ammonites come from.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Yeah there is, go check Lev 20 and come back to us with the Punishment for Fathers having sex with their Daughters.
> 
> We'll wait


20:14


----------



## Zguy28

Nucklesack said:


> I'm sorry i thought we were discussing the Christian Bible, not Babylonian mythos


No I'm sorry. I thought you might actually have a shred of intellectual honesty. My mistake.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> In the case of Lot its covered since she was dead.  In others the Father can not have sex with BOTH the mother and daughter. seems pretty clear not sure why you struggle.


Because I, like pretty much anyone else would, don't read in a threesome to this statement in the Bible.  It seems very clear, in context, that it matters not whether the mother is there, whether Dad has sex with Mom that day, the day before, or only once ever.  If she's the Mom, and he's the Dad, Dad can't mess with their daughter.

You read it has to be a threesome.  We disagree based on your very limited view of this this restriction





> Try to keep it straight.  18:6 just tells you incest is wicked, 18:?? tells defines incest


18:6 defines incest as being with "close relations".  Are a father and daughter not close relations?





> As defined by your bible Fathers and Daughter love is ok if mom isnt getting any.


Where is that verse, that it must be a threesome?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Thats good if Lot was banging his wife and Mother-in-Law
> 
> but that wasnt the discussion.


I see that very clearly as being any woman and her mother.

Now, that would mean his daughter and her mother.  Since he was already with the mother, that pretty much precludes the ability to be with the daughter.

Even if it's not a threesome.


----------



## Zguy28

Nucklesack said:


> And we thought maybe you were interested in the debate instead of petulant non-sequitors.


Okay, for the memory challenged folks such as Nucklesack:



			
				Nucklehead said:
			
		

> You and This_person have the same problem, your trying to compare todays values to when the Bible was written.


Since the OT Scriptures and Hammurabi are both ANE writings and relative contemporaries I referenced it.



			
				zguy28 said:
			
		

> Incest with a daughter is condemned in the Code of Hammurabi


Your response is one of somebody who can't back up their previous statement (which is patently false) but can't admit it.



			
				Nucklehead said:
			
		

> I'm sorry i thought we were discussing the Christian Bible, not Babylonian mythos



You introduced the notion of not reading our values today back into ancient cultures (which I agree with BTW), but you were wrong in your assumption. Just admit it.


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and father.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation
> 
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX
> 
> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome i stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.



one other thing that points to your reading of the verses is the part about not sleeping with your wifes sister, unless your wife is dead, then it is ok.

seems like the wife being alive is what makes it wrong, kind of like what you are saying for the daughter.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and father.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation


So, how long (in your alternative world) do mom and dad have to not be with one another to make this okay, to fit dad not being with both mom and daughter?

Clearly, you are recognizing that the verse means dad can't be with daughter, and now you're just putting a time limit on it - especially with your parenthetic statement in your last sentence.  So, now that you know the daughter of a woman who dad's has sexual relations with is also his daughter, and therefore prohibitied, what is the timeframe your alternate verse allows for? Do mom and dad have to be sexually inactive for a day?  A week?  A month?  A year?  When is the daughter's mom no longer her mom, in your view, thus making it okay?





> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX


Yes, as defined in 18:6 AND 18:17.





> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome i stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.


Except, that's not what the verse described.  18:6 says "close relation", and (as you so aptly point out) goes on to explain what close relations are.  Aunts and nephews, moms and sons, step moms and sons, etc., etc.

And, fathers and daughters, as described in 18:17.  _*YOU*_ are putting the "still sexually active" clause into it, that's NOT in the Bible.  The verse simply does not say anything like that.  Nothing.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Clearly ?  really?
> 
> 
> Depending on the particular flavor of the Bible
> 
> Neither relates to Lot, but nice try


They actually both relate to Lot. He was with daughters and their mother.

He was wrong.


----------



## Zguy28

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and father.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation
> 
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX


Its irrelevant. The specific violations mentioned do not negate the overarching law of not having sexual relations with a close relative such as a daughter.

That's also another reason I mentioned Hammurabi. It was a widely accepted that father-daughter incest was taboo in ANE culture such as existed in Babylon and among the Hittites.


----------



## This_person

Maybe this was along the lines of Lot's punishment:





desertrat said:


> Father Norton woke up Sunday morning and realizing it was an
> exceptionally beautiful and sunny early spring day, decided he
> just had to play golf.
> 
> So... he told the Associate Pastor that he was feeling sick and
> persuaded him to say Mass for him that day.
> 
> As soon as the Associate Pastor left the room, Father Norton
> headed out of town to a golf course about forty miles away.
> 
> This way he knew he wouldn't accidentally meet anyone he knew
> from his parish. Setting up on the first tee, he was alone.
> After all, it was Sunday morning and everyone else was in
> church!
> 
> At about this time, Saint Peter leaned over to the Lord while
> looking down from the heavens and exclaimed, "You're not going
> to let him get away with this, are you?"
> 
> The Lord sighed, and said, "No, I guess not."
> 
> Just then Father Norton hit the ball and it shot straight
> towards the pin, dropping just short of it, rolled up and fell
> into the hole.
> 
> IT WAS A 420 YARD HOLE IN ONE!
> 
> St. Peter was astonished. He looked at the Lord and asked,
> "Why did you let him do that?"
> 
> The Lord smiled and replied, "Who's he going to tell?"


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> In regards to Lot once his wife was no longer part of the living.  Exactly what i've stated from the get.


Is this only true for that one particular instance?

For example, Lev 18:8 says "Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father."  Once your dad dies, is it okay to be with your step-mom?

Or, Lev 18:12 says "Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative."  Once dad dies, is Auntie on the bonking list?

If these are not true, why does mom still need to be alive per 18:17?  What is your justification to put this caveat in the Bible where no one else can see it?





> One is the rule, the other does not fit the definition of Lot


Except, most anyone on earth (except you, well, and thatidiot) would consider a daughter a close relation (18:6), and would consider Lot's daughters to be the daughters of a woman with whom he had sexual relations (18:17).  You've been unable to find the "until mom dies" clause, so I have to assume you're making it up.





> But not Fathers Daughters


_Except_ where you've already admitted it _*does*_ say that, but invented a "until mom dies" clause.





> Since it says Sex with Both Mother and Daughter its pretty clear what it means.  You continue to grasp this defines Lot yet it doesnt.  This is strengthened by the fact there isnt a punishment (Lev 20:xx) for a Father sleeping with his own Daughter


Except, you admit it defines Lot.  You described that you assumed that Mr. and Mrs. Lot were still sexually active, which is where the question came in as to how long they could be sexually _inactive_ to meet your definition.  You wisely changed (again) your definition to just be when Mom's dead, but you can't provide any place that suggest that except your (and thatidiot's) interpretation - one which does not pass even the most outrageous common sense test.

And, of course, the punishment is at 20:14.  You see that, too, of course as only being until mom dies.  Again, completely unsupported by any scripture or common sense test.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> It doesnt relate to Lot since he wasnt married to his Daughters.  The Lev 20:14 verse clearly state Wife and Mother.
> 
> Lot situation was Mother and Daughter, different scenrio than Lev 20:14


I'll grant you that.

What constituted becoming someone's wife then?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Another alternative reality your subscribing to?  The punishments for Incest are clearly defined in Lev 20:xx, did you find the one for father daughter love yet?


Yup, and repeatedly posted it (you do realize that post was a joke, right?)


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> one other thing that points to your reading of the verses is the part about not sleeping with your wifes sister, unless your wife is dead, then it is ok.
> 
> seems like the wife being alive is what makes it wrong, kind of like what you are saying for the daughter.


One of the many problems with that thought process is a point Nuck is making - if it says it one place, then why doesn't it say it somewhere else?  If it suggests once the wife is dead it's okay with the sister, it would say once the mom is dead it's okay with the daughter (if that's what it meant).  You prove my point, not yours.

Another problem is the daughter is still a close relation regardless of whether the mom is still alive - still flesh of flesh.  A wife's sister is not.

A double failure in one post - that's a feat for most, and commonplace for you.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) *he'd have been in violation*


Now that you've admitted there actually is a prohibition against fathers and daughters (with your made up caveat regarding a timeline of mom and dad's sexual activity, or mom's potential death), can we stop having this portion of the argument?  In the future, too?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> No, since you still havent been able to find a punishment that would fit what occurred between Lot and his daughters.  Just as you havent found the definition that defines Father and his own Daughter love as bad.
> 
> 
> Nucklesack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i do not,* i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter*.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) *he'd have been in violation*
Click to expand...

So, he can't have sex with both mother and daughter, and have been in violation, but it's not wrong?    Is that seriously what you're saying????


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Stop looking at it with your views of today, taken in context with Lott offering to allow his daughters to be gang raped and you can see how the Bible doesnt forbid Father Daughter love.


What does Lot offering his daughters up to save angels have to do with Lot sleeping with his daughters?    You're getting further and further out into the wild areas of "reaching"


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Entirely off subject comment


This has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible says incest father and daughter is acceptable.  Twisting the conversation will not work.

You've said you know it's wrong, per the Bible.  You've said that the only thing you saw as how Lot was NOT in violation was that Mom was dead (a requirement you fabricated out of whole cloth).

We can talk about how high a regard the Bible (or, some people's interpretation of the words therein) holds women in.  That's got nothing to do, directly, with whether it is considered incest for a man to have sexual relations with his daughter.

You've _*already*_ admitted that it is incest, per the Bible (even if you had to create a "time since mom and dad were sexually active" clause in your mind).

Why do you deny it now, when you've already admitted it?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your also making the mistake of thinking Lot knew they were Angels.  You know they were, because you were told so, in the beginning Lot doesnt.
> 
> But lets assume Lot knew, they are supernatural beings, Lot didnt think they could take care of themselves?
> 
> Lot didnt realize they were angels until a little later on, re-read the scripture.  It was when they told him they were going to destroy the city that night and he and his family would be saved that Lot had any indication or implication that they were angels.
> 
> So Lot, the "Just and Rightous" offered up his virginal Daughters so they could be gang raped by a Mob to protect his house guests.


Again, while it's a fun subject for you to consider, it's not the question at hand.

The question at hand is whether you know that incest between a father and daughter is actually specifically stated in the Bible, so we can preclude this question in the future.  You've already passively admitted you know this, I'm just trying to nail it down so we don't go down that road again, and again, and again, and again.....


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Whats wrong in a corner cant defend your position and upset because your getting called on it?
> Its ok i'll try and take it a little easier on you


No, I'm ignoring your distraction and keeping it on focus.





> It was wrong if the Mother was alive, NOT because of of a pornographic threesome as you envisioned, but because Daughters were held as less valuable, and by having sex you offend the Mother.   This is why the stress of the verses states Both a Mother and her daughters, where the other verses specifically call Father and his daughter, Mother and Son etc.


So, where is this verse you see that no one else can that puts the mother's life as a prerequisite?





> But prove me wrong, show me the verses that spell out expressely the ban  Leviticus 18:6, and Leviticus 18:17 and the punishment.  Leviticus 20:14


----------



## foodcritic

This_person said:


> No, I'm ignoring your distraction and keeping it on focus.So, where is this verse you see that no one else can that puts the mother's life as a prerequisite?



Save your breath.  Knucklehead will argue about if the sky is blue.  We know it is.   He can have eternity, if he chooses, to figure out if it's blue or if sex with a daughter is incest.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Still cant find the punishment eh?


Still have, over and over and over again.  Leviticus.  Chapter 20.  Verse 14.  Plain as day.





> Until you show where it calls out, in the same manner as the other incest variations, a ban against Fathers having sex with their own Daughters.  And until you show where it punishes Fathers and Daughters that have sexual relations, you know the same way all other versions of Incest are punished.


Very clear - Lev 18:6, and 18:17, with 20:14.  No ambiguity





> In Biblical times you can not have sex with both a Mother and her Daughter(s). Note it does not say that the daughter is his (Father) close relation, its is the Mothers close relation.  The stress is on the Mother, not pappa.


Please provide where it stresses which one is the close relation.  Which verse is that (besides the super-secret one you have in your head that says it's okay after the mom dies, or if mom and dad aren't sexually active any more)





> Furthermore there are specific punishments laid out for all versions of Biblical incest, Father Daughter love is not one of that carries a punishment (because it is not incest per the book).


Please reconcile your parenthetic statement here with your previsous statement here:

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as *Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter.*  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation


Thanks!





> Lot was an example of Justness and Rightousness, even after offering his virginal daughters to be gang raped by a mob to protect his guests (he didnt know were angels).  He was further an example of Justness and Rightousness, per the NT Apostles, even after he had Father Daughter love and fathered the people of 2 nations.


And?  You seem like you think you're going somewhere with this, yet it means nothing.


----------



## This_person

foodcritic said:


> Save your breath.  Knucklehead will argue about if the sky is blue.  We know it is.   He can have eternity, if he chooses, to figure out if it's blue or if sex with a daughter is incest.


He gets it.  He said so and admitted that a man can't have sex with his daughter.  Described Lot as "in violation" of 18:17 (and then added a completely made up requirement that mom still be alive and sexually active with dad).

My question is why he keeps on with the farce that it doesn't say it after he admitted it says it.


----------



## Beta84

This is a great discussion about ID vs Evolution if I do say so myself.  Oh wait, was that the topic?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> This is a great discussion about ID vs Evolution if I do say so myself.  Oh wait, was that the topic?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> No matter which flavor you read, Lot wasnt doing the do with his Wife and his Mother-in-Law so it doesnt apply.
> So which one does?


If he was "taking" his daughter as his wife (sleeping with her), and her mother (the one he took as his wife and created the daughter), he was with them both.  Thus, the punishment.





> Your right it is very clearn, 18:6 states incest is wrong it is not the definition, those are provided in later verses.  18:17 doesnt apply to Lot, he wasnt dishonoring the mother, since he wasnt having sexual relations with Both the Mother and her Daughter.


You already said he WAS in violation.  You then, and now, created a caveat that doesn't exist anywhere that suggests:
It matters whether the mother is still alive
It matters whether the mother and father are still sexually active
The mother is a close relation, but the daughter is not
None of these things are in the Bible the rest of us can read, just the one you can.  


> 20:14 you've already admitted it doesnt apply.  Your just showing your own dishonesty by continues to claim it does.


No, I admitted it did.  That's why I asked what constituted taking someone as their wife.  You just didn't pick up on it.  I can't be faulted for that.





> I will repost it since you have obviously never read the Bible
> Notice the stress put onto it being the Mothers close relatives?


I notice your stress on the issue, but not the stress that causes one to see what you see (stuff that's not there).  Even if, and I stress this is an IF, it supposes the problem is that a man's daughter is his wife's close relative, does she stop being a close relative when Mom dies?  I mean, you just make no sense.

You've already admitted that Leviticus 18:17 would have put Lot "in violation" to sleep with his daughters if Mom was alive and sexually active with Lot.  Now, those two conditions are not in the Bible.  You HAVE to see that, don't you?  You are literate, right?





> No reconcilliation needed the Bible doesnt want a Father to dishonor the Mother, it has nothing to do with a Father having sex with his own daughter.


Let me try your huge word thingie, and see if you get it
A man's daughter is his close relative.  This makes him in violation of God's will via Leviticus 18:6 if he has sexual relations with her.  It continues to be spelled out clearly in Leviticus 18:17  Did the big word thingie help you?





> Kind of belies the belief that lot was Just and Rightous when he's willing to offer up his daughters to be Gang Raped, since Daughters arent worth anything his Guests were more important (and no he didnt know they were Angels)


Why do you believe he did not know they were representatives of the Lord?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Just as with your alternate Eden, this is your own interpretation, not supported by the Scriptures.
> 
> If you want to admit you follow an alternative Bible thats fine, but the Christian Bible does not support your made up story.
> 
> The odd thing is you admitted 20:14 didnt apply, yet you still claim it does.


It applies, based on what "taking a wife" means.

Even if it didn't, Lev 18:6 and 18:17 still apply (whether a punishment is given or not - is there a given punishment for every sin?  NO)


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your history of changing what someone says to fit your own idiolized agenda is once again evident (doesnt matter that you change the words, you didnt change the meaning right?)
> 
> Was Lott banging both his Wife and Daughters?  (nope)


Where is the requirement that it had to happen simultaneously?  Or, how many days apart in your version of the Bible was okay - what verse did you add to come up with this time difference?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> My stance is supported by the fact that EVERY variation of Incest is listed in the scriptures except for Father having sex with their Daughters.  18:6 obviously doesnt do it, that is why all the variations are spelled out in the later verses.  My stance is further supported by the fact there isnt a punishment for it, when there is for every other variation of Incest.


18:6 _*does*_ handle the situation, whether you like that or not.  18:17 further handles the situation, whether you choose to accept it or not.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because unlike yourself, i actually read the verses, what makes you interpret that he knew they were?


Genesis 19:1, "*The two angels *arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said,...."  They weren't described in any way as being something hidden, or in any way obscure as to whether they were angels or not.

So, where is your reference that he didn't know?





> If you had actually read the verses, instead of infering your own alternative reality, Lot had no reason to think they were anything other than visitors passing through Soddom.


You mean, other than that they were angels, and clearly described as such?





> When the Horny Mob comes to have their way with the guests, he doesnt say _No for they are Angels _, he first offers his daughters up for rape and tells the mob the visitors are his guests.
> 
> The visitors then blinded the mob, and then warned him to take his family out of the city to survive the destruction.  At that point he had a clue they were something other than regular joes.


Other than the fact they'd already been described as angels?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> According to the This_Person version of the Bible, the King James, NIT and all other versions dont support your argument.


According to your view that daughters are not close relations, the mothers have daughters with men without sexual relations, and that time clauses exist in the Bible that no one else can see.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I have never stated Daughters are not close relations to their Fathers, continuing to claim otherwise makes the weakness of your arguments more obvious.


Okay, stay with me here now.....  if daughters are close relations to their fathers (and vice versa), how is 18:6 not applicable?





> But while we are on the subject, did you find the Punishment for Father Daughter love yet?


Yes, and showed it to you repeatedly.


----------



## Beta84

Why oh why are you two freaks arguing about INCEST and whether it's LEGAL according to the bible in a thread dedicated to ID vs Evolution.

At least go make your own "we want to argue about incest" thread so everyone knows you're arguing over stupid crap and doesn't keep checking this thread hoping for interesting discussion pertaining to the topic.

"Incest is illegal, see it says so here!"
"nooo incest was never made illegal because of this and that"
"Yes it was, read this"
"No it wasn't!  You're misinterpretting again!"

Rinse and repeat.  Who cares?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You do understand the concept of a Narrative?


Yes, I do





> Just because those telling the story knew they were angels does not mean Lott did.


No, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest he _*didn't*_ know, and reasons like him telling his sons-in-law to be that the Lord was going to destroy the city, even though the men merely said _they_ were going to destroy the city, as context clues to suggest he knew they were angels.  Also, in a literary sense, there would be some mention of Lot's ignorance of them being angels once they were identified to the reader as angels if there was any reason to suggest Lot didn't know.

You're making crap up again, like the time limit from mom and dad's last sexual activity until it's okay for a dad to sleep with his daughter.





> _*My Lords*_ is your proof?


I see, since I bolded "the two angels", and put the "..." after "my lords" to signify there was more but I was stopping there, YOU saw an emphasis on "my lords" instead of "the two angels".  You _really_ have a context problem with reading, don't you.





> But continue on showing your ignorance for the very Bible you claim to follow.


I haven't shown it yet.  To "continue" with something, someone would have to have already demonstrated something.

English your second language?


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> Why oh why are you two freaks arguing about INCEST and whether it's LEGAL according to the bible in a thread dedicated to ID vs Evolution.
> 
> At least go make your own "we want to argue about incest" thread so everyone knows you're arguing over stupid crap and doesn't keep checking this thread hoping for interesting discussion pertaining to the topic.
> 
> "Incest is illegal, see it says so here!"
> "nooo incest was never made illegal because of this and that"
> "Yes it was, read this"
> "No it wasn't!  You're misinterpretting again!"
> 
> Rinse and repeat.  Who cares?


The thread was _actually_ just about an upcoming TV show on Darwin - what will hopefully be a two-sided discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of his theory.

Nuck hijacked it to a different discussion starting with post #2, and then led it astray every chance he got.  Whenever he didn't like what was said (like the faults with evolutionary theory, his belief that the Big Bang is inaccurate and his misunderstanding of the science that proves him wrong, etc), he changed the direction to something he thinks he gets, but really doesn't.

However, I'd be much happier talking ID vs evolution than repeating the same four sentences every post.


----------



## Beta84

this thread was hijacked and diluted.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> What did your thread have to do with Religion?
> 
> Intolerant faithers see any kind of dispute in the Scientific community as proof their belief in mythological beings is correct.
> 
> Sadly they dont realize this is the Scientific method at work and functioning correctly, it has nothing to do with proof your particular deity is the correct one.


It wasn't about my religion.  It was about a TV show discussing the macro-evolutionist's religion - weighing the relative merits and faults of their faith.

How many times do I need to say that before you get it?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Nice try, Science and Religion are not equal, no matter how you try to make it so.
> 
> Now that you admit it has nothing to do with Religion, why did you post it in the Religion forum?


Try not putting words in my mouth, especially when I specifically said the opposite.

I see macro-evolution as a religion, because it doesn't have any more science behind it than ID, or Christianity, or the Spaghetti-Monster God thingie.

That's why I posted it in the religion forum.  





Just like the last two times I told you that.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because you are applying todays values and standards to those in existance when the Bible was written.


Okay, then it's your contention that they didn't think, when the bible was written, that a daughter and father were closely related?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> When you claim Religion and Science are equal, its is your own words not mine.
> 
> Now that you admit it has nothing to do with Religion, why did you post it in the Religion forum?


As I've repeatedly stated before, I don't consider macro evolution "science".  I consider it a religion.  It holds no more science than ID - it can't be tested nor proven/dis-proven.

Did you get it that time?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Its my contention the Bible, as it is written, didnt consider Father Daughter sex as incest.


Did they, or did they not, at that time, consider fathers and daughters to be close relations?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Science disagrees with your consideration.


And with yours on the Big Bang.

However, if intellectually honest, they'd have to suggest there's no more science to macro-evolution than ID.

I've asked repeatedly for a demonstration of the test, and none seem to exist.


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> Science disagrees with your consideration.



gotta love that when he sees his argument is failing he trys to say your argument is the same, even when it clearly isn't.

this science = religion BS is a perfect example, you, me and others have completely crushed his assertion about evolution, so now he is saying that evolution is religion. what a effing joke


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> ....pointless garbage.....


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Are we talking about Society (of the time) or the Bible (when it was written)? Thats 2 different things (especially when you remember the Bible was trying to "Correct" society).
> 
> They considered daughters as having little value beyond what they would fetch for their sons.
> 
> The Bible describes to you (Post the 18:6 verse) what is a Close Relation.
> 
> Your continued grasping on 18:6 as a catchall doesnt fit with the fact that all the verses that follow 18:6 clearly define what is meant by Close Relations.  None of them describe Lots situation, except by extrapolating your own interpretation using todays values and morals.


Was there an answer to my question in this?  It didn't look like it.

Did the Isrealites, the ones to which God was speaking via Moses per Leviticus 18, believe that daughters were close relations to their fathers?

It's a "yes" or "no" question.  Really.  That's all it takes to answer.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Are we talking about Society (of the time) or the Bible (when it was written)? Thats 2 different things (especially when you remember the Bible was trying to "Correct" society).


The people, the Isrealites, the ones being communicated with verbally from God to those people via Moses

The Bible is a record of what happened, not an instruction manual of the time.

When Moses said to the people, "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations", would those people have considered a father and daughter to be close relations?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> When Moses said that to the people, why would he have to express no incest, if it wasnt to correct something?
> 
> So once again, are you asking if the Society thought Daughters and Fathers were close relations or the Bible?  2 different things


Since Moses was talking to people, not a book that wasn't written yet (and I've repeatedly said the Isrealites, the people), I mean the people, the society to which he was speaking.

Did the people to which God was speaking, via Moses, consider fathers and daughters to be close relations?  If you believe that the Isrealites would not have considered fathers and daughters close relations, please provide a source for that answer.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your arguing semantics.  When he was talking to the people where did Moses get the direction when he was talking to the people?


God gave Moses the direction.

So, when God spoke to the people, via Moses, and said "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations", would those people have considered a father and daughter to be close relations?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Its unclear, but to ensure there wasnt a question about what a Close Relation really is, Moses went on to detail all variations of incest that are forbidden (except for Father Daughter love).
> 
> To reinforce the fact they were forbidden, Moses then went on to tell them what would happen if they broke the commandments against incest.  Once again Father Daughter love was ommitted and doesnt not carry a punishment..


Well, that's not exactly true.

There is NO reason to think that father-daughter relationship was any less close than any other relationship.  Indeed, in Leviticus 18:10 it specifically calls out not having incest with your granddaughter - be she from your son or your daughter - because it would dishonor YOU (not her, not the son, not the daughter, not even the granddaughter).  And, in 18:17, son's daughters and daughter's daughters are both specifically called out as "close relations"  In fact, in every verse, women are _somebody's_ close relation.  To believe there was a specific prohibition against a daughter's daughter as a close relation, yet not a daughter as a close relation, defies all logic.

And, in fact, you don't _really_ deny this.  You stated that, if the mother is still alive (your clause, nowhere to be found in scripture), it actually _*is*_ prohibited and incestual for a father to be with his daughter.  Where you came up with the clause for mother being dead, or mom and dad still being sexually active, I'll never know, but....  Here's what you said:

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter.  I*n Lots case she was dead he was safe*.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*


So, even with your self-delusional clauses, you accept that, basically, father-daughter incest is prohibited in Leviticus.

Repeatedly, it's clear through every context clue that fathers and daughters are considered close relations (unless you're now going to say "close relations jump a generation, that's why a daughter's daughter is close, but the daughter isn't").  Thus, Leviticus 18:6 _*CLEARLY*_ applies, unless you're just looking for a fight you've already admitted you were wrong about.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You are proving my point, Sisters, Daughter/mother/sister-in-laws and granddaughters are all specifically called out and prohibitted against.  Yet Daughters are not


What was it you were saying Lot would have been in violation of, then, had he had sex with his daughters during the life of their mother?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And you clearly you continue to misrepresent


Misrepresent what?    I quoted you!


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If its so clear why is left for interpretation based on the Values and Morals of the civilization reading the verses?


Because, only someone trying to find fault where none exists would look at a daughter as not a close relation to a father (Lev 18:6), or a woman's daughter with a man (his daughter) as a somehow ambiguous statement.

Did you support Clinton, that it mattered how one interpretted the word "is"?





> And if its so clear why does the 18:17 verse stress that you cant have sex with Both a Mother and HER Daughter because it is HER (Mothers) close relation?  The verse clearly doesnt recognize the Fathers relation to a daughter.


HOW can you say that without dying laughing?

The verse talks about all the close relations to a man.  Including the daughter he shares with a woman.





> 18:6 would only have applied if God (using Moses) didnt feel it was necessary to detail what he meant by Close Relations, in the later Lev 18 verses.  And you continue to ignore that all variations of incest (listed in Lev18) carry a punishment, not only is Father Daughter love ommitted from the definition of a Close Relation, it also doesnt have an applicable punishment.


Only in YOUR interpretation, not in an honest one.


----------



## Starman3000m

This_person said:


> *Was Darwin Wrong?​*​
> Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?



Yes! Darwin was wrong.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If Lot was having sex with BOTH the Mother and HER Daughters, Lot would be in violation because they are HER close relations (keep ignoring the importance your book makes about this).
> 
> In Lots case he was safe because the verses didnt condemn a Man from banging BOTH a corpse and HER Daughters.


Where is the "until mom dies" clause written?  I can't find it.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Obtuse much, because i further expanded upon what the point was in a later post, you know this because you replied to it.
> 
> But since your argument has gotten weaker as this discussion has gone along, you're now left with misrepresentations and quotes out of context (but then your the master of .. changing words, but supposedly not changing the "meaning" )


My argument is unchanged.

Yours has gone from "it doesn't say it", to "it only says it if he's actively having sex with both", to "well, it's okay because she's dead", to "I never said that", to "well, I was taken out of context"





If it's wrong for Lot to have had sex with his daughters (yes, I know, if he was still sexually active with their mother, and/or she was still alive   two clauses not written anywhere in scripture, but written in your mind), then it obviously says it's wrong for a father to have sex with his daughters.  Because, that's how one becomes a man's daughter

you've admitted Lot would have been wrong if he met your clauses that don't exist in the Bible.  Therefore, you've admitted your previous statement against the Bible suggesting it says nothing about a man having sex with his daughers is wrong.

Just admit it, so I can stop typing the same sentences over, and over, and over......


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> So you admit that all the other variations of incest are clearly defined, the only one left out, Father Daughter Sex, is left to interpretation based on the fluid values and morals of Society.


No, I admit that it's clearly there, and you have to reach to find a way to twist it to mean anything else.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And now your either showing your ignorance of the Bible or your blatantly lying.  Here is the Verse once again
> 
> Where does it talk about the close relations to the man?  Try for once to be a little honest.


Once again, you can't be the father of a woman's daughter without having had relations with the woman.

Once again, the man would be dishonoring himself if he has relations with his son's daughter or his daughter's daughter.  Clearly, the daughter's daughter is a close relation per 18:6 with 18:17.  Are you seriously still trying to suggest that 18:10 can suggest a man dishonors himself by having relations with his close relative, his daughter's daughter, but it's somehow NOT clearly understood that the daughter is ALSO a close relation?  Is that seriously your point of view?





> Here is the verse with my edits
> 
> 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Her (Mother) Daughter, it does not mention, infer, nor recognize the Father at all. You can interpret it to mean a Father, using todays values, but the Bible does not condmen it



It's not "today's values" that make a man's daughter with a woman her daughter too, nor is it "today's values" that makes a woman's daughter with a man his daughter too.

This is where you're just plain reaching for no reason but to argue.  You're trying to be a FredFlash lawyer, and you're about as successful at it as he is


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> There's a surprise, you havent been able to find alot in regards to Father's having sex with their own Daughters:
> 
> The prohibition against it
> The punishment for committing it



18:6, 18:17, 20:14


Now, where is the "until mom dies clause"?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Ahh, so you dont want to address the verses and instead want to misrepresent what i wrote.


read on.  

And, it's not misquoting you when I use the quote feature, and print what you say!    You said Lot would have been in violation.  with his daughters.  Of 18:17

You already admitted it, Nuck.





> I have used the fact that Lot was held as a Just and Rightous man, in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and even after he offered his Daughters to be Gang Raped by the mob, as proof he didnt violate any tennent.


yet, that the punishment is not printed does not mean it wasn't there.  i'm NOT saying it was, but that it's not printed doesn't mean it wasn't there.

where's the "until Mom dies" clause?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Since its clearly there.
> 
> Tell us the verses, using the same clear and explicit language, that a Father can not have sex with his own Daughters.



'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter



You can't do this with your daughter without violating, unless you create some "until mom's dead" clause.

Where is that clause?


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> As I've repeatedly stated before, I don't consider macro evolution "science".  I consider it a religion.  It holds no more science than ID - it can't be tested nor proven/dis-proven.
> 
> Did you get it that time?



Do you even realize how intellectually bankrupt you sound making comments like this?  Obviously you don't.  No wait, maybe you do.  You're certainly one of the premier strawmen on the forum, continually misrepresenting facts.

This statement tells us nothing other than that you cherry pick your belief system. (No surprise there then! )  You believe in evolution, but you don't believe in Evolution.  What I am illustrating is that your stated belief system is inconsistent. That's okay as far as it goes (it's another discussion perhaps), but it doesn't mean that evolution falls based on your worldview inconsistencies. 

Basically, you say, "Oh, I believe in the science and the evidence up to a point, and then I jettison the science and the evidence because it doesn't fit in with my religious views."

You turn it on and turn it off as suits your needs. For some reason you need "definitive proof" for evolution, but when it comes to God -- whoops! Out the window goes your standards for "definitive proof" and suddenly it's touchy-feely "Faith is good 'nuff for me!"

Okay, fine. You're free to do so. But it's ridiculously inconsistent. And it's the primary failing point for theists, though they will never admit it. You jettison everything: Evidence, criteria, methodology, analysis -- when it comes to the belief you wish to embrace.

Look, if god was shown to be the active cause of life on Earth, I'd believe it. I'd stay consistent with my criteria. I don't make up loopholes and excuses, saying, "Oh, science is right up to this point, but then faith takes over."

Like I said, you're certainly free to do it, but it's encumbent upon me to point out that this is nothing more or less than selective reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That is not what the verse is prohibitting.  It is prohibbiting incestual polygamy (same as the verse about having sex with a wife and her sister while she is alive) it has nothing to do with a Father havign sex with his own Daughters


That's a twisted interpretation, not what it actually says.





> that is not what the verse states, you are using This_Persons alternative bible again




			
				Lev18:10 said:
			
		

> 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; *that would dishonor you*


It really looks like it says that?  Is this like your "until mom dies" verse, that no one can see but you, only opposite (everyone else can see it but you)?





> This is not a discussion on the whether or not the Bible is biologically sound.  The society, when these verses were concocted, treated Father Daughter sex differently than we do today.


NO, it's not.  You have no reason to assume that, and it's only that assumption that makes what you're saying have any value at all (it would still be wrong).

Fathers and daughters are close relations, as proven over and over again.  The people would have thought that, therefore 18:6 and 18:17 apply.





> Either because it was acceptable for Fathers to have sex with the Daughters, or because the paradox Lot (and his Just and Rightousness) presented if it was condemned, it wasnt added as a prohibition to your Bible.  Evidenced by the fact that it also carries no punishment.


Again, a self-fullfilling assumption.  "It doesn't say it, because if it did, then where it says it would be wrong", that's your basic argument.





> Except i'm not the one that has to misrepresent posts, change the wording of verses or pull out an alternative bible in order to prove my point.


That's EXACTLY what you are doing in this case.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> The fact that there is no punishment is not the ONLY evidence.
> 
> The stronger blow to your argument is the fact that Lot, who not only offered his Virginal Daughters to the Mob to be gang raped, but also had Father and Daughter sex, continues to be held as a Just and Rightous man in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
> 
> If his Sexual Daliance was condemned, would he still be Just and Rightous? The fact that he is considered one of the _Good Guys_, after offering his Daughters up is bad enough.
> 
> The part about the missing punishment solidifies that there isnt an edict against Father Daughter love.


Nope, Moses is still considered one of the good guys, too.  And, he was clearly punished for his sins.

Not a valid argument.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That wasnt the request
> 
> You made the claim that they are clearly there, so where is it?



I'm not sure how it could be more clear.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Do you even realize how intellectually bankrupt you sound making comments like this?  Obviously you don't.  No wait, maybe you do.  You're certainly one of the premier strawmen on the forum, continually misrepresenting facts.


What facts have I misrepresented (I've asked you this dozens of times before, and you never answer, so I doubt you'll answer this time).





> This statement tells us nothing other than that you cherry pick your belief system. (No surprise there then! )  You believe in evolution, but you don't believe in Evolution.  What I am illustrating is that your stated belief system is inconsistent. That's okay as far as it goes (it's another discussion perhaps), but it doesn't mean that evolution falls based on your worldview inconsistencies.
> 
> Basically, you say, "Oh, I believe in the science and the evidence up to a point, and then I jettison the science and the evidence because it doesn't fit in with my religious views."


Except, Nuck Jr., that's not what I said.

I said micro-evolution - changes within species - clearly happens.  For what reason, we don't know.  For example, are we taller now than hundreds and thousands of years ago because of various mutations in our genes which caused taller people to prevail (suvival of the fittest), or, are we taller because we have better food, medicine, living conditions, etc.?    However, I do not see any _proof_, nor repeated, peer reviewable tests that demonstrate a lower level species (amoeba) can be the parent species over a gazillion generations to a higher order species (human).  This test has never happened to the best of my, your, or anyone else's apparent knowledge, and thus it leaves macro evolution as having the same scientific problem ID does - no peer reviewable, repeatable tests.

What I'm saying is not what you're attributing to me.





> You turn it on and turn it off as suits your needs. For some reason you need "definitive proof" for evolution, but when it comes to God -- whoops! Out the window goes your standards for "definitive proof" and suddenly it's touchy-feely "Faith is good 'nuff for me!"


For a religion, Christianity is good enough for me based on faith.  For a scientific explaination, evolution is not one iota better than ID - because the difference between ID and Evolutionary beliefs are one step of untestable proof.  They lie on the same bedrock.





> Okay, fine. You're free to do so. But it's ridiculously inconsistent. And it's the primary failing point for theists, though they will never admit it. You jettison everything: Evidence, criteria, methodology, analysis -- when it comes to the belief you wish to embrace.
> 
> Look, if god was shown to be the active cause of life on Earth, I'd believe it. I'd stay consistent with my criteria. I don't make up loopholes and excuses, saying, "Oh, science is right up to this point, but then faith takes over."
> 
> Like I said, you're certainly free to do it, but it's encumbent upon me to point out that this is nothing more or less than selective reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.


I appreciate your permission to have a faith in something other than "#### happens" - that's very kind of you.  

However, there is a difference between my faith and a science based explaination - I admit mine is faith, you pretend yours has a peer reviewable, repeatable test that demonstrates macro-evolution.


----------



## foodcritic

wxtornado said:


> Do you even realize how intellectually bankrupt you sound making comments like this?  Obviously you don't.  No wait, maybe you do.  You're certainly one of the premier strawmen on the forum, continually misrepresenting facts.
> 
> This statement tells us nothing other than that you cherry pick your belief system. (No surprise there then! )  You believe in evolution, but you don't believe in Evolution.  What I am illustrating is that your stated belief system is inconsistent. That's okay as far as it goes (it's another discussion perhaps), but it doesn't mean that evolution falls based on your worldview inconsistencies.
> 
> Basically, you say, "Oh, I believe in the science and the evidence up to a point, and then I jettison the science and the evidence because it doesn't fit in with my religious views."
> 
> You turn it on and turn it off as suits your needs. For some reason you need "definitive proof" for evolution, but when it comes to God -- whoops! Out the window goes your standards for "definitive proof" and suddenly it's touchy-feely "Faith is good 'nuff for me!"
> 
> Okay, fine. You're free to do so. But it's ridiculously inconsistent. And it's the primary failing point for theists, though they will never admit it. You jettison everything: Evidence, criteria, methodology, analysis -- when it comes to the belief you wish to embrace.
> 
> Look, if god was shown to be the active cause of life on Earth, I'd believe it. I'd stay consistent with my criteria. I don't make up loopholes and excuses, saying, "Oh, science is right up to this point, but then faith takes over."
> 
> Like I said, you're certainly free to do it, but it's encumbent upon me to point out that this is nothing more or less than selective reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.



Have you done the research?  I don't believe in ID.  I believe in creation and hence think I remain consistent.  For every question about evolution there is a "reasonable" answer.  Whether you choose to accept it is not my problem.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your confusion is evident, you have yet to display the verses, using the same type of language, that bars Father Daughter love.  You have posted your interpretation of it, but not the verses using the lingo used in every other variation of prohibited biblical incest.


Why does it have to be "the same type of language"?  Isn't "clear" a good enough language for you?

You've already said that, if Lot's wife was still alive (a clause you've yet to show me), then Lot would have been "in violation".  You've already admitted that you know father/daughter incest is specifically prohibited by saying that.  You merely now are trying to stave off argument of where your "until mom's dead" clause comes from.

Where is that clause, anyway?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> So lets get this straight, Lev 18:10 specifically and explicity tells a man not to have sex with his grand daughters.  There is no reason for interpretation, since the verses are very detailed.
> 
> Yet there is no like verses for Father Daughter love, and you think this helps you?


Of course it adds to the plethora of information that refutes your misinterpretation.

18:10 specifically defines a daughter's daughter as too close a relation to the man to have sexual relations with.  Do you really think there is any, ANY justification for the people of the time to clearly recognize that a daughter's daughter is too close, but a daughter is not?  It's so incredibly obvious that you can only be _choosing_ to argue for argument's sake.





> Did you think before you posted that one?


No, I know I did.  Here


> Using the same sentence structure, used by 18:17, and using YOUR argument, it should have said _"Do not have sexual relations with a Womans Sons Daughter, or a Womans Daughters Daughter"_.
> 
> But it doesnt, because 18:10 is not the same type of commandment.  Thanks for proving my point.  18:17 and 18:10 are talking about 2 different relations, 18:10 is talking about the Mans and 18:17 is talking about the Womans.  One cares about the Mans incest, the other cares about a man having sex with BOTH a woman and HER daughter.   You are using todays value system to make this particular verse fit the morals of today, but it was not prohibitted back in those days to have more than one wife, 18:17 ensures the other wives are not related (same as the verse about having sexual relations with a woman and her own sister).


Can you show me somewhere, using the same sentence structure, that supports your misinterpretation?  

No?  Then, clearly you're just making stuff up.

18:10 says a daughter's daughter.  18:17 says a daughter's daughter.  You're _fabricating_ out of whole cloth the distinction.  Even if there were one, it's a distinction without a difference.  Is it seriously your argument that a granddaughter is too close a relation (whether it's too close to the woman you created the daughter with, too close to the man involved, or too close to the woman with whom you are having sex), but a daughter is not?  Do you even read what you write?  

If I'm using today's value system, then show me somewhere that demonstrates the people to whom Moses was speaking (for God) would have seen a granddaughter as a close relation, but not a daughter.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> YOU ARE DOING YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION, for 18:17.


Okay, so without interpretation or referencing other quotes (which is a form of interpretation), please explain how a man could have sex with his daughter if he didn't have sex with her mother.

You can't.  You've already admitted that Lot would have been "in violation" (your words).  You've already conceded the point.  Why do you persist in re-making the point you already said was wrong?





> As you yourself has proven, the Lev verses have the ability to point to biological relations.  As your repeated failures hav shown, there are none in regards to a Man having sex with his own Daughter.
> 
> If the Lev verses considered a Father having sex with his OWN daughter, it would have called it out, EXACTLY the same way it called out ever other variation used in Lev 18:


Why can't it use common sense?  Why can't it say "a woman and her daughter" meaning your woman and your daughter (since one naturally follows the other, AND includes step children all in one fell swoop)?





> And as Mr Compensation has already proven, Father Daughter love was more accepted than it is today.


When did you prove that?





> No matter how many times you claim 18:6 absolves the acts it doesnt.  If 18:6 covered Father Daughter love, it would also cover all other acts of Incest.


It does!  Sometimes, as you've said, the Bible repeats itself





> Using your failed argument, 18:10 wouldnt be necessary either.   The fact that 18:10 does exist, shows 18:6 is only the edict, it is not the definition.  All the verses that follow are the definition.  So since you now realize that 18:6 is not the definition of incest, where is the one about Fathers having sex with their daughters, just as with 18:10?


18:6 defines it all.  18:10 is no more necessary than 18:17.  With this, I agree.

Because, close relation was a clear language to use.[qutoe]We dont expect you to acknowledge this, but here is the difference.  My entire argument is based on the verses of the Bibles that exist.  There is no twisting, there is no changing of the words, there is no interpreting the verses to fit todays morals, and i am not using an alternative bible. [/quote]Then, show me that verse about "if mom's still alive", or "if mom and dad are still sexually active", as you've posted before. 





> Your argument is not the same.  You have had to change verses, misrepresnt my posts, create alternative biblical verses and interpret the verses using values that did not exist at the time the verses were created, and when the supposed events occured.


I've neither changed the verse, nor your posts (well, I _did_ change your mistype of father to daughter, I thought you were clear otherwise and it was an obvious mistype - unless you meant father?  ). 

I ask you again, how do you have a daughter with a woman without having sexual relations with that woman?  In the context of Moses speaking for God to the Isrealites, was EVERYONE a close relation (including a man and his grandchildren) _*except*_ a father and daughter?  Is that REALLY your argument?





> Lets see, I have posted (numerous times) the verses as they are written.  While i have added my own comments for the verses, they are easily recognized (different color), i have not changed any wording nor did i change any meaning.  You have a history of doing that.
> 
> You on  the other hand, have posted This_Persons alternative biblical interpretation about what they mean.  You have misrepresented verses and you have had to change the meaning of the words in order to get your false premise accross.


Show me where I've reworded the verse.





> In this conversation, one of us is honest and the other is not.  You have been the second.


Again, show me.  You're lying, and it's that simple.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> lets see, Moses was prohibitted from doing something, did it and was punished.
> 
> There were verses describing Moses' knowledge of breaking Gods laws, there were verses describing what Moses did, and (here is the failure of your argument) there are verses describing Moses' punishment for his acts.
> 
> Lott was not prohibited from sex with his daughters, Lott was held in high regard for his actions, was specifically saved because he was held in such high regard.
> 
> And unlike Moses, there was no punishment for his acts.  Unlike Moses, who was punished, he continued to be used in a positive examples in the OT and NT and continued to be considered Just and Rightous after ALL of his heinous acts.
> 
> I keep telling you, you might want to actually crack the Bible open and read it for once.  When you enter into this conversations it would really do yourself some good to have a clue on what your actually talking about.


Can you show me where it specifically says there was no punishment for Lot's acts, or is that your interpretation?

While I agree that Moses knew he was violating God's law, there are specific verses that suggest that Lot didn't even know he was committing a sin:





			
				Genesis 19 said:
			
		

> 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. *He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. *
> 
> 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. *Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. *


Did you find the verse that says "unless mom's dead" yet?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Since you havent posted a verse that specifically prohibits Father Daughter sex, using the same language used in 18:10 (which shows Lev recognizes biological relations), we take it your finally admitting defeat?
> 
> Anything else would just strengthen your dishonesty


18:6 and 18:17 make it very clear.

Anything else would just strengthen your malicious misinterpretation


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> You claim the Bible forbids Father Daughter love, yet you have yet to post anything that prohibits any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 18:6 sets the edict against Sex with Close Relations, but it does not end there.  So there is no need for "interpretation" it continues on, in later verses, to define what is Close Relations.  Every instance of what the Bible considers "Close relations" is listed, except Father Daughter love.  You are shoehorning 18:17 to fit todays values and standards, but that was not the case when the verses were written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Relative 1. A person related by blood (is a daughter related by blood?  DUH) or marriage; *
> 
> The fact that the bible uses the word "relations" should be a clue to you.  Yet your own hatred has blurred your mind to common sense.  Just because the bible goes on to make more clarifications about some relationships DOES NOT MEAN it has to spell OUT EVERY  CONCEIVABLE, POSSIBLE relationship that could ever exist.
> 
> If your want to argue, argue  with Webster (and other sane people) and his definition of relative feel free.  Daughter falls in to the category of a relative SO SO SO SO that means that IT"S FORBIDDEN.
> 
> Now, if your own perverted mind wants to continue to fantasize about the relationship go ahead.  God has prohibited it CLEARLY in the bible based on the definition itself.
> 
> That is the end of my discussion on the matter.  You are free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Clearly ?  Really?  Then post the verse,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 18:6 " 'No one is to approach any close *relative* to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
> 
> 
> *Relative *1. A person related by blood (is a daughter related by blood? DUH) or marriage;
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because anything else is YOUR interpretation of the verses.


And/or YOUR MISinterpretation





> You have a history of creating alternative biblical history to fit your need.


POTENTIAL, where it's unclear, I offer POTENTIAL explainations.





> You claim the Bible forbids Father Daughter love, yet you have yet to post anything that prohibits any such thing.
> 
> Lev 18:6 sets the edict against Sex with Close Relations, but it does not end there.  So there is no need for "interpretation" it continues on, in later verses, to define what is Close Relations.  Every instance of what the Bible considers "Close relations" is listed, except Father Daughter love.  *You are shoehorning 18:17 to fit todays values and standards, but that was not the case when the verses were written.*


You keep saying this as if it were true, yet you've been entirely unable to substantiate that claim.

Again, "...both a woman and her daughter..." is very clear.  This says not your wife and daughter, not your wife and step-daughter, not your concubine and her daughter......  It says it all quite simply, and clearly.

Please provide your source to show that, "when the verses were written" daughters were NOT considered close relations (yet, THEIR daughter was a close relation to their father, per 18:10).  When you can show that, this claim of yours may have some validity.  Until then, it's just another false claim you have.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> This is clearly obvious, in 18:10 (for instance) when it prohibits sex with your Sons Daughter and your Daughters Daughter, yet there is nothing that prohibits sex with your Daughter.


Well, except for 18:6 and 18:17 you'd be correct.





> Anything else is Your interpretation, if its valid then the entire Bible is open for interpretation.


Hate to burst your bubble, but of course it's open to interpretation.  If not, there wouldn't be several denominations.

However, there is no reason to parse the meaning of the word "is" here, Bill.  No lawyerly getting around the obvious.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Here comes This_Person with more of his artistic license in regards to accuratly quoting others.
> 
> I have stated Lot was not in violation, but not for the reasons you stated.  There is nothing in any verses that state a father can not have sex with his own daughter.  There is a verse that states you can not have sexual relations with BOTH a mother and her daughter because it is HER close relations (did you notice it does not recognize a father?).


Well, since the person having sex in the context we're speaking would BE the father, Moses was talking TO the father.  The "you" to whom he was speaking was the men, telling them that they can't have incest.

However, for your  regarding my "artistic license in regards to accurately quoting others":

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and _father_. Now, here's my "artisitc license"...  I assume you meant "daughter", not "father" here (fraudian slip, perhaps?)  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*


Now, when you say that a man having sex with his daughter (if her mother is still alive AND sexually active with him) would put him in violation, what exactly are you saying he's in violation of?  Is it 18:17?

Clearly, yes, it's 18:17 that he would be in violation of.  Per YOU.

So, now that leaves us with your clauses....  The things that make him in violation.  Let's look at those.

You say "it says both".  Okay, it sure does.  So, I asked you if that means it has to be a threesome.  Your answer:

Nucklesack said:


> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome *i stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe*.  Pretty strong words, there


So, it's not a threesome, per you.  That means, there would be some time separation. How much time do you interpret this to mean?  You described above "assuming (they're) still sexually active".  Huh, well, to some people "sexually active" means they've EVER had sex.  To others, it means "expect to continue having sex".

What's your interpretation of "sexually active"?  Because, you're really interpretting the hell out of this, Mr. Clinton.    I mean, you've put two conditions in here (alive AND sexually active) that no one else can see.

Yes, it says both.  Define where the Bible suggests that "both" means they're continuing to have sex on a regular basis vs have ever had sex.  

My money goes with common sense - that a daughter is at least as close a relation to a man as her daughter is to said man, and that having had sexual relations with Mom means you can never have sexual relations with daughter.  I see absolutely no "unless, of course, well, it's been, uh, two years, er, well, maybe just two months, uh, or, well, y'know, if mom's dead, or, hey _what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, baby....."_.  

No, it's pretty clear.  But, you keep on trying.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You continue to dismiss that Polygamy was accepted in society and the Bible, this verse when taken in the same vein as a man also having sexual relations with a Sister-in-Law, is clearly intended to prevent having sex with a woman and her close relations.


I don't dismiss polygamy, I see no relevance.

However, I'll agree that it "is clearly intended to prevent having sex with a woman and her close relations", like, her daughter for example.  Which means, of course, that if it's HIS daughter, too, it means he can't have sex with his daughter.  That's not interpretation, that's understanding language. 


> Incestual Polygamy, this is why the verse does not recognize the father, its only concern is the close relation to the Mother.


There you go again with that "does not recognize the father" stuff.  Who, pray thee tell, do you think Moses was speaking to?  Who is it that may not have sex with a woman and her daughter?  

Your reach is very long, son.





> Was Lott having sex with BOTH a mother and her Daughters? If your answer is anything other than No, your either pulling more from This_Persons Alternative Bible, or your lying.


Now we're back to the definition of "is", huh?  

Again, please define, per Biblical verses, where the time is stated that it's no longer considered having had sex with a woman to make it okay to sleep with a close relation.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Really? so Post the verses that CLEARLY state a father is not to have sexual relations with his own Daughter.


18:6 and 18:17.

Explain how a daughter's daughter can be considered a close relation to the man, but the daughter is NOT a close relation to the man per 18:10.

Since that wouldn't pass even the most liberal excuse for common sense, you lose the discussion right there.





> Its incredibly obvious you dont like the fact that your Bible doesnt prohibit it, i'm sure its not an easy thing to realize.


The hard thing to realize is that you'd go this far, even after admitting that father/daughter relations ARE incest, and still be suggesting it's NOT incest   That's rich





> Clearly you didnt read it, you refute yourself with your own post.  Father Grandaughter sex is clearly and explicity denied,  Yet father Daughter love is not.


Well, except for 18:6 and 18:17





> You are interpreting the verses to fit.  All of the verses clearly list what is considered the "Close Relation".  The Lev 18: verses clearly do not list Fathers having sex with their own Daughters.


Well, except for 18:6 and 18:17





> Notice you've gotten away from Lev 20:, ever find a punishment for it?


Yup, and posted it repeatedly.

And, even if there weren't, that wouldn't mean that it's not prohibited.





> Clearly Father Daughter love is not only not prohibited it also doesnt carry a punishment.  Yet every other instance of what the Bible considers "Close Relations" is clearly listed and clearly carries a punishment.


So, every single thing prohibited, without exception, carries a stated, specific punishment?

Are you sure?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Again with your own interpretation of the verses.
> 
> 18:6 is clearly the edict against incest, thats it
> 
> The later 18:xx verses are clearly the definition of what a "Close Relation" is.
> 
> 18:17 doesnt prevent Father Daughter love, it only prohibits having sex with BOTH a woman and Her daughter.  Same as it prohibits sex with your Sis-in-Law when your Wife is alive.


Now, for your sister in law it clearly states "while your wife is alive", right?

Where's that clause regarding mom still being alive and sexually active with fathers in terms of the fathers with their wife and daugher per 18:17?


----------



## foodcritic

foodcritic said:


> Nucklesack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 18:6 " 'No one is to approach any close *relative* to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
> 
> 
> *Relative *1. A person related by blood (is a daughter related by blood? DUH) or marriage;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEAH  this stupid argument is finally over
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

foodcritic said:


> YEAH  this stupid argument is finally over


I thought it was pretty much over when he said 

Nucklesack said:


> I stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.


But, he seems to think that doesn't mean exactly what it says  

If he can't understand what HE says, how can he possibly understand what he READS?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Unfortunately for you the later verses go on to define what the Bible considers a Close Relation, and why.
> 
> There is nothing prohibiting Father Daughter sex.  Every other variation of incest is defined, very clearly and very explicitly, but Father Daughter love is not.



  So, it's _*still*_ your contention that a daughter's daughter is considered a close relation, but that the people who would have known and understood this would _*not*_ have considered the daughter a close relation.

This is really what you believe the strength of your argument to be?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Dishonesty from This_Person - I posted the verses without edit, there is nothing, outside of interpretation, that prohibits Father Daughter love.


I posted without edit as well.

You simply misinterpret.  Clearly, when 18:10 defines a daughter's daughter as a close relation to the person being spoken to, only a fool would think the person in between (the daughter) would not OBVIOUSLY be a close relation.

Clearly in 18:17, as you repeatedly said, a man cannot have sex with his daughters per that verse.  

You simply added some requirements, like, mom needs to still be alive, and she needs to be sexually active with dad.  Otherwise, in your _interpretation_ (without _*any*_ substantiation or basis whatsoever) it would be okay per that verse.

Without the substantiation of how a daughter's daughter could be close, but a daughter could not, or, where the clauses of "still sexually active" and "unless mom's dead" are written - you're simply making stuff up.

I'm not making anything up.  I'm adding nothing to the verses.  I make no other claim than what it says.

You, sadly, cannot say the same.





> You made up your own scenario to make the verses fit your desired outcome.  I post the verses as they are intended.


If the question is whether a man can sleep with his daughter per the verse.  It's not a made up scenario to say, "well, if the verse says 'not a woman and her daughter' is it possible for him to have a daughter with a woman without it being his and hers".  It's the basis of the question.  

If the question is whether Cain slept with his sister, it's no more a "made up scenario" to suggest other alternatives than it is to create a sister where none is spoken of.  Your potential of Cain sleeping with a sister is as completely unfounded scripturally as another creation.  that was kinda my point  





> You were asked this before, was Lot banging BOTH the Mother and HER Daughters?


Yes.  He had sexual relations with the mother (creating the daughters), and then had sexual relations with the daughters.

You've been answered this before, too.


----------



## thatguy

Nucklesack said:


> *How can there be an interpretation to the "Truth"? *
> 
> But tell you what, i've been using the NIT version of the Bible, you tell me what flavor you read and i'll post from there.



  seriously


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Not applicable.  This verse does not define incest, it only tells you it is Wicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when it says it's wicked with a "close relation", is that some far out, lawyerly term that the people being spoken to, or their offspring thousands of years later, would have had any trouble understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Later verses are the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Like, 18:10 which tells us that his daughter's daughter is a close relation to a man - yet you want me to believe the people that thought that didn't think the daughter would have been a close relation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued usage of this verse is nothing more than more of your failed circular logic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your continued denial of the verse simply makes your argument more pathetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Lot having sexual relations with BOTH the Mother and HER Daughters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still, yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.
> 
> How can there be an interpretation to the "Truth"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free will, baby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But tell you what, i've been using the NIT version of the Bible, you tell me what flavor you read and i'll post from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a fine version.  You still won't understand what YOU write, let alone what is written there, but....  I'm fine with that version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one posting "Potential" Alternative versions.  I've only posted what is in your Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you've found where Cain's wife was referenced to as his sister.  In the NIT?  Could you please provide the verse, so I can learn?
> 
> Oh, and the verse in the NIT that shows where your "unless mom is dead", or, "unless mom and dad are no longer sexually active", as you've posited before?  could you post those verses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find that punishment yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, and provided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You keep saying its pretty clear, yet you have not been able to post a verse, without relying upon interpretation, that prohibits Father Daughter sexual relations.
> 
> I suggest you stop using _it's pretty clear_ until you do so.


Definitions are not interpretations.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Once again, since you continue with your creative editing, it is my contention that your Bible has no verses that prohibit nor punish a Father for having sex with his own Daughters. But continue twisting my argument, all you've shown is your prevalance for Misquotes and Circular Logic.
> 
> Of course you and the Mall Cop would rather proclaim your ignorance for the Bible that you profess to beleive in.


WHAT misquote?  Where did I ever misquote you?!?

YOU said 

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and father.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX
> 
> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome *i stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe*.


Now, if you click on that little arrow thingie next to your name, that's a link to your actual post, that is word for word what is here.

That's not a misquote.  That was a mistake on your part to actually post the truth (other than your fictitous clauses of "unless mom's dead" or "unless mom and dad are not sexually active", per this post)


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Really? Is this another of your alternative ...... Err i mean potential versions?
> 
> Your alternative ...... Err i mean Potential version of the Bible proclaims that Lott was banging his daughters before his Wife was turned into Salt?
> 
> Or do you mean alternative ...... Err i mean potential version of the Bible has Lott banging a salt statue?


Now, see, where I do NOT misquote you, you DO misquote me.

I've answered this question here:





This_person said:


> Yes.  He had sexual relations with the mother (creating the daughters), and then had sexual relations with the daughters.
> 
> You've been answered this before, too.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> How hard is it to understand that the Bible has no verses prohibiting Father Daughter sex?  How hard is it to understand the Bible prohibits, in no uncertain term, every other variation of incest except for Father Daughter sex?  How hard is it to understand that anything else is interpretation, and as such, not valid when it comes to the "_Truth_"


It's very hard to comprehend something that's not true.

It's not "interpretation" to know the definition of a mother, father, and daughter.


----------



## Starman3000m

Yes, Darwin was Wrong.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Already posted the verses that proclaim all life sprang from Eve's womb (something to that effect).
> 
> It says ALL LIFE. What it doesnt state All Life in Eden, except for the other town, not mentioned in the Bible and only availble in This_Persons Alternative.... Err Potential Version.


Well, actually, it says





			
				Genesis 3: said:
			
		

> 20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she *would become* the mother of all the living.


After the flood, since all blood lines would include Noah's, this would be true.

So, does this mean you have no non-interpretational quote to show where the assumption comes from that Cain was with his sister, vice someone else?





> Simple, since she was a Salt Statue,  Lot was not having sexual relations with BOTH the Mother and HER Daughters.


Well, not simultaneously.  But, we already agreed it didn't mean "threesome". 

So, where's the verse that shows how much time is necessary before your daughter's mother is no longer someone with whom you've had sex?  Is it like the 150 mile rule for being on the road?  I heard about that one on the Bob and Tom radio show.  Is it like that?





> Really?  When did you do that, since you already admitted Lev 20:10 has nothign to do with a situation such as Lot.  20:10 is the punishment for banging a wife and HER mother, nothing to do with a mother and her daughters.


As you discussed with your polygamy nonesense, a daughter taken sexually would be like a wife. Thus, if you've been with both your daughter and her mother, 20:10 would apply.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.
> 
> This is Science, and the scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.
> 
> Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer



Scientific theories are just that "theories" and they change all the time through applications of being observed with new technology. So you scrap one theory and replace it with the next theory.

God never changes and His existence is proven through the spiritual and Divine Intervention that He has had with mankind since the days of Creation.

Sure, God's Intelligent Design allows parameters of cause and effect that we can observe but science has yet to prove - really prove that this earth is Billions of years old when it could actually be 6000 years old.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Its interpretation if all variations of incest are clearly defined, with no need for interpretation, except for Father Daughter sex.
> 
> You can interpret the verses to mean Father Daughter sex, but the Bible does not list it as one of the defined versions of close relations.


That's a bad misinterpretation.

You've already said that....  Well, let's use YOUR words

Nucklesack said:


> I read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and father (daughter).  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*
> 
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX
> 
> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome i stated *a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.*


So, you say that a dad can't have sex with his daughters because mom's dead.

Again, I ask you, where is that clause?  The clause of wife's death is clearly stated in the wife and sister-in-law verse, so where is it for this one?  Where do you get your imaginary clause from?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.
> 
> This is Science, and the scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.
> 
> Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer


Okay, so devise for me the test that would disprove hundreds of millions of years of generational mutations that would account for higher order species all coming from a single cell of life.

'Cuz, that's what evolution says happened, so if it's really science, there would have to be a way to disprove it, right?


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Unfortunately for you the later verses go on to define what the Bible considers a Close Relation, and why.
> 
> There is nothing prohibiting Father Daughter sex.  Every other variation of incest is defined, very clearly and very explicitly, but Father Daughter love is not.



Wrong again.  later verses go on to provide examples....NOT definitions.  And contrary to your earlier statements note EVERY scenario is listed as an example.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Eve mother to all living
> Cain direct son of Eve
> Cains wife.......?  Either sister or neice


"would be", not "is".

There is a difference





> Once again i use the Biblical verses, unlike your Alternative..... Err Potential version.  Eve was to become - big difference the Mother to all living, Cain was Eve's first son, Abel his brother was second.  Nowhere does it state some other alternative town for his wife to come from.


Well, actually that's not really true, either.  Starting with Gen 4:14, there is a lot of implication of many other people already on the earth.

Again, you are assuming based on a single phrase regarding what Eve would become, and was thus named.  You are _*interpretting*_ based on your limited context clues abilities.





> Either his wife was his Sister (Eve's third child) or she was Ables daughter (from Cain and Ables sister).  Either way it was incestous


ONLY if you limit the context to just that one line.  If you read the rest of what it says, and interpret from the whole of the story, you could come up with a plethora of potential variations. 


> You are the one that keeps throwing in threesomes.  As you admit Lot was NOT banging BOTH the Mother and HER Daughters, so he was not in any violation.


Once again, Mr. Misquote, I said that he DID have relations with mother and daughters.  My answer to the question of whether he had relations with mother and daughters has been consistently "yes".

YOU say that it wasn't simulaneous, and therefore it was acceptable.  My question to you on this point continues to be - how much time does there have to be in between mom and dad's sexual activity for your previous statement

Nucklesack said:


> If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (*assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active*) he'd have been in violation


to be true?  YOU asserted this, not me.  Again, if you click on that little arrow thing next to your name, you'll see it's a completely valid, non-reworded quote directly from you.





> You already admitted (above) Lot was not in violation


  You're gonna have to quote me on that one, because Lot WAS in violation





> Sorry its 20:14, 20:10 deals with adultry and another mans Wife.


I'm not going back and re-reading each time either.  I don't have it memorized, and don't claim to.





> Here is what the verse actually states (not your interpretation)
> 
> This is more of your dishonest interpretations, the verse clearly has nothing to do with Lot.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with a Man having sex with his own Daughters.
> 
> Talk about reaching.  More of your failed intrepetation.  You have nothing to base that on, the verse clearly states the punishment for


Let's pretend it has nothing to do with father/daughter incest.  So what?  Is every single thing that is wicked listed with a specific punishment?  Every single thing?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You already admitted that Lot was not having sex with BOTH the Mother and HER Daughter, why continue on with this?


Not simultaneously, I agree.

I'm looking for your "unless they're still sexually active" timeline, per the biblical verses.

Or, the verse similar to wife and sister-in-law which specifically calls out "unless wifey's dead" that is the same for the "woman and her daughter" phrase.

It's there, right?  You're not just making it up, are you?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You've already admitted to believing in Abiogenesis, this is nothing more than more of your circular logic.


By definition, abiogenesis is life from lifelessness.  Unless we're talking ID, I don't believe I've "admitted" to this.  Please link me to my quote.





> Darwins Theory of Evolution, has evolved into its own Theory as a seperate entity from Darwins Belief.


Nifty.

Show me the test, repeatable and peer reviewable, that demonstrates all of life as we know it, and the 9000% we surmize has existed beyond what we know of today, came from a single strand of DNA (which we have no idea how or when it was formed).


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Just because Darwins Theory of Evolution may be incorrect, that does not mean the Theory of Evolution (which is different) is invalid.  Your continue attempts to equate Scientific Theories with parables and folk lore, is a pathetic attempt to justify your own ignorance.


Yet, you can't show me a test.  Which makes your version of "scientific theory", well, folk lore.





> You're entire thread, in the wrong forum, proves that Darwins' theory of Evolution is a valid Scientific Theory.  Because the possibility of it being disproven is established.
> 
> Intelligent Design/Creationism does not follow the same principles, unless your willing to allow the Bible to be proven wrong.
> 
> One (Evolution) is a scientific process, the other is not.  Just because you dont know, nor understand, how the practice of Scientific Theory works does not make it invalid.


Of course the Bible could be proven wrong.  What that has to do with ID escapes me, since they're not necessarily tied together.  But, you like to tie things that have no tie to "prove" (in your mind) your "point".

If macro evolution is a scientific process, then show me the test - repeatable and peer reviewable.  I've asked for this repeatedly, and you never answer.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Again with the lame attempts at perversion.  It doesnt say simultaneously, it says Both a Mother and HER Daughter.  Mrs Lot was months Dead when he did the did with his daughters, he was not having sexual relations with BOTH.


So, what's the timeframe that's allowed?  And, the verse that shows that.





> Maybe you should read the verses, instead of coming up with a knee jerk reaction because you automatically assumed Father Daughter love was covered in the verses.  You can interpret it to mean what you want, but there are no Verses that explicitly prohibit Father Daughter sex, in the same manner that all other acts of incest are explicity prohibited.


No, it clearly states it in different words, not the same words.  It says a man can't have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter.  YOU added in that this phrase must mean that the mother and father must remain sexually active.  My question is, where does it say that?  Where did you create this interpretation from?





> See all the other Lev 18: verses explicitly and clearly prohibit acts of incest.  There is no wiggle room, since it calls it out in undeniable detail.  Yet Father Daughter love is not.


Well, except for 18:6 and 18:17





> The only one that has made up anything in regards to verses in the Bible is yourself, as you have admitted in regards to Eve Eden and Cain.


I never made anything up.  I read the verses, in context.

YOU are making up a "still sexually active" clause that no one else can see.





> You keep dwelling on portions of my posts, this is your way of misdirection since you cant refute the missing verses, instead of reading the entire context of what was written.


Actually, I put it all in full context.  I talked of whom Moses was talking to, how 18:10 suggests that a daughter's daughter is a close relation, how it's physically impossible to be a man's daughter without the man and woman having had sexual relations.  Heck, you even agreed with that part - and then added a "as long as they're still sexually active" clause that no one can see.





> We have already established who it is that makes up Alternative..... Err Potential verses to fit their desired biblical outcome


Yep.  You.  You find sisters that are never spoken of except in your mind, "sexually active" and "still alive" clauses that no one else can see......

Yeah, that's you.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> lol this is your reply?  really?
> 
> You do realize your making my point?  Not only is Father Daughter sex not listed as prohibited there is also not a punishment for it (yet there is for other variations of incest)


No, I said "let's pretend".  I've fully, repeatedly said I believe it to be there, and why.

You ignore that, or disregard it.

So, _*let's pretend*_ that it's not there (even though, again, and still, I believe it to be).

So what?  Does every single thing ever said to be a wrong action in the bible come with a prescribed punishement?

Because, you're reasoning of "well, other stuff is there" is only valid if every single other thing prohibited as good actions by people in the Bible comes with a prescribed punishment.  Otherwise, it's just hot air.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> No, I said "let's pretend".  I've fully, repeatedly said I believe it to be there, and why.
> 
> You ignore that, or disregard it.
> 
> So, _*let's pretend*_ that it's not there (even though, again, and still, I believe it to be).
> 
> So what?  Does every single thing ever said to be a wrong action in the bible come with a prescribed punishement?
> 
> Because, you're reasoning of "well, other stuff is there" is only valid if every single other thing prohibited as good actions by people in the Bible comes with a prescribed punishment.  Otherwise, it's just hot air.



Man has proven they can't and wont follow rules and laws God and man set let alone those that are not specifically defined.


----------



## This_person

PsyOps said:


> Man has proven they can't and wont follow rules and laws God and man set let alone those that are not specifically defined.


One did.  Most fail at least one thing


----------



## wxtornado

Starman3000m said:


> Sure, God's Intelligent Design allows parameters of cause and effect that we can observe but science has yet to prove - really prove that this earth is Billions of years old when it could actually be 6000 years old.



Whoops, wrong again!  Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Do you even realize how intellectually bankrupt you sound making comments like this?  Obviously you don't.  No wait, maybe you do.  You're certainly one of the premier strawmen on the forum, continually misrepresenting facts.


What facts have I misrepresented (I've asked you this dozens of times before, and you never answer, so I doubt you'll answer this time).





> This statement tells us nothing other than that you cherry pick your belief system. (No surprise there then! )  You believe in evolution, but you don't believe in Evolution.  What I am illustrating is that your stated belief system is inconsistent. That's okay as far as it goes (it's another discussion perhaps), but it doesn't mean that evolution falls based on your worldview inconsistencies.
> 
> Basically, you say, "Oh, I believe in the science and the evidence up to a point, and then I jettison the science and the evidence because it doesn't fit in with my religious views."


Except, Nuck Jr., that's not what I said.

I said micro-evolution - changes within species - clearly happens.  For what reason, we don't know.  For example, are we taller now than hundreds and thousands of years ago because of various mutations in our genes which caused taller people to prevail (suvival of the fittest), or, are we taller because we have better food, medicine, living conditions, etc.?    However, I do not see any _proof_, nor repeated, peer reviewable tests that demonstrate a lower level species (amoeba) can be the parent species over a gazillion generations to a higher order species (human).  This test has never happened to the best of my, your, or anyone else's apparent knowledge, and thus it leaves macro evolution as having the same scientific problem ID does - no peer reviewable, repeatable tests.

What I'm saying is not what you're attributing to me.





> You turn it on and turn it off as suits your needs. For some reason you need "definitive proof" for evolution, but when it comes to God -- whoops! Out the window goes your standards for "definitive proof" and suddenly it's touchy-feely "Faith is good 'nuff for me!"


For a religion, Christianity is good enough for me based on faith.  For a scientific explaination, evolution is not one iota better than ID - because the difference between ID and Evolutionary beliefs are one step of untestable proof.  They lie on the same bedrock.





> Okay, fine. You're free to do so. But it's ridiculously inconsistent. And it's the primary failing point for theists, though they will never admit it. You jettison everything: Evidence, criteria, methodology, analysis -- when it comes to the belief you wish to embrace.
> 
> Look, if god was shown to be the active cause of life on Earth, I'd believe it. I'd stay consistent with my criteria. I don't make up loopholes and excuses, saying, "Oh, science is right up to this point, but then faith takes over."
> 
> Like I said, you're certainly free to do it, but it's encumbent upon me to point out that this is nothing more or less than selective reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.


I appreciate your permission to have a faith in something other than "#### happens" - that's very kind of you.  

However, there is a difference between my faith and a science based explaination - I admit mine is faith, you pretend yours has a peer reviewable, repeatable test that demonstrates macro-evolution.


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Unfortunately for you the later verses go on to define what the Bible considers a Close Relation, and why.
> 
> There is nothing prohibiting Father Daughter sex.  Every other variation of incest is defined, very clearly and very explicitly, but Father Daughter love is not.



Originally Posted by foodcritic  

Lev 18:6 " 'No one is to approach any close *relative* to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. 


*Relative 1. A person related by blood (is a daughter related by blood? DUH) or marriage; *

This is becoming a comical game of "who's on first"

Knucklesack rejects the fact that the bible CLEARLY prohibited incest in verse 18:6.  *AGAIN the bible provides examples following NOT definitions!! GET IT?*

Oh but wait the argument is that somehow there is a conspiracy to remove "daughter" from the definition of blood relative.
OR OR OR that at the time of the writing of the verse, they apparently did not know that a daughter was a blood relative because the word "relative" was not really a word and if it was, daughter was not included.

This is by FAR the most foolish argument I have ever heard.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Yet when the laws and rules are not specifically defined, others blatantly admit they interpret the verses to fit their own desire.



Darwin was Still Wrong. And by the way, Nucklesack, don't scientists often interpret evolutionary and research theories to fit their own desire when they are seeking additional Funding for their research?


----------



## foodcritic

Nucklesack said:


> Its already been established the Father Daughter incest was prevalant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Another Knucklehead lie, distrortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also deemed a lesser offense, compared to a Father having sex with his Sons Wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You just said the offense did not exist and yet you say it was considered "lesser". More distortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that?  In the time these verse were talking about, it was worse to sleep with your Daughter-in-law than your own Daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could it be worse when you say there was no prohibition in the first place?  More distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 18:6 is a condemnation of incest, thats it, it does not define Incest.  You can tell this because the verses that follow 18:6, define what the Bible considers Incest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again incest HAS  a definition YOU refuse to accept it.  The verses are examples. Again that is what they are as much as you try to distort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as there is no prohibition against Father Daughter sex defined in the Bible, there is also no Punishment for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said it was deemed a "lesser offense"  are you just pulling stuff out of the air?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just being idiotic, nothing new we've come to expect this of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 possible reasons for this.  Father Daughter sex, in society, was not prohibited.  Or at least not prohibited enough by society to warrant the drastic punishments that are called out for other variations of Biblical incest (this is the more likely scenario).
> Second possibility, the Council of Nicea, when it built the current Bible, didnt use the verses.  It would be a hard sell to have S&G as this example of what happens when you dont follow God, when his own Just and Rightous survivor, who was willing to allow his virginal daughters to be raped by the mob, committed acts that would be considered a Wicked (having sexual relations with his close relatives).  We already know that the Council threw out verses that didnt fit with its agenda (Gnostic Gospels for example), so throwing out verses that prohibit Father Daughter sex could have just as easily happened.
> Have you read any of your own posts?  You might want to go back and reread them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OH yes the old "Council Of Nicea" conspiracy!  They new we would be having this discussion so they elimintated these "daughter" clause 

The OT existed before the council of Nicea!! And so we can look at the Torah or Pentatauch and find the same verse for example

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am HaShem
Vayikra - Leviticus Chapter 18

Now I suspect that you will argue that it is now a jewish kabal that is behind this dubious plot.  Or maybe "near kin" does not have a definition that you like , like maybe daughter.  

And of course the jewish kabal had to plot this rouse with the old council of nicea to make all this work.  I think you need to watch the Da Vinci Code ONE more time.  I am told that if you turn the book upside down and read it backwords in a mirror you will find the real holy grail...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Oh please tell me we are now opening the Biblical verses up for debate, based on the language, definition of words, standards and morals of Today, as opposed to when the verses were written and stories were told.
> 
> You REALLY do not want to open that can of worms.


So, again, do you believe at the time this was originally spoken, to the Isrealites by Moses, that they would have understood a daughter's daughter to be a close relation to the man in question per 18:10, but _not_ the daughter herself, per 18:6 or 18:17?

Please provide the "logic" to your "point".





> Its already been established the Father Daughter incest was prevalant.


  Where was this established?  The same verse that talks about "until mom's dead" or "unless mom and dad aren't sexually active", you know, those verses only you can see!





> Do you understand that?  In the time these verse were talking about, it was worse to sleep with your Daughter-in-law than your own Daughter.


Nope, see absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.





> Lev 18:6 is a condemnation of incest, thats it, it does not define Incest.  You can tell this because the verses that follow 18:6, define what the Bible considers Incest.


Once again, please read the verse:

 " No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD " - New International Version

“You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the Lord." - New Living Translation

"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD."  King James Version

"None of you unto any relation of his flesh doth draw near to uncover nakedness; I [am] Jehovah"  - Young's Literal Translation

"Don't y'all have no incest, and let me tell you what incest is in the next few lines, I am da Lord"  - Nucklesack's Fantasy Version





> Wrong, and this is where you show your ignorance of the Bible. The structure of the Bible is very clear, every instance there is an Edict (say against incest) it follows up with definition of that particular edict.  It uses these definitions so there is no doubt what it considered prohibited in the Edict.
> 
> The later Lev 18: verses are the definitions of what is considered Close Relations.  The verses in Lev 20:xx are the punishments for breaking the prohbitions defined in Lev 18:.  Just as there is no prohibition against Father Daughter sex defined in the Bible, there is also no Punishment for it.


So, if I can demonstrate to you that there are edicts that are not followed with either definitions nor punishments, you would be able to admit you're wrong?





> Now you are just being idiotic, nothing new we've come to expect this of you.
> 
> This_Person has attempted to define my argument as something other than what it really is, same as you've done above.  But my argument is simple, there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting Father Daughter sex, while it does define other variations that particular act is not mentioned.


No, I've defined your argument based on your words.  You said that Lot would have been in violation of 18:17 if Mrs. Lot was still alive and sexually active with Lot.  If effect, you demonstrated that you understood that 18:6 and 18:17 prohibited father/daughter sex when you said that a man could not have sex with his daughters while he was still sexually active with Mom "as the verses describe".  This is not defined your argument as something other than what it really is.  I'm using *your* words.

Now, all I ask you do to is show me where it says that mom still has to be alive for the man to still be considered as having had sex with her, or where your clause stating that mom and dad are "still sexually active" comes from.  You hate me bringing this up repeatedly because it shows you agree that 18:6 and 18:17 are prohibitions against father/daughter sex, and you have to create clauses to make your argument valid.  You have to lie to be "right".





> Some have used their own interpretation, based on todays values, to make a verse fit.  Yet they, nor you, can explain why every variation of incest, as defined in the Bible, is clearly and explicitly detailed.  There is no doubt, when it says you are not to have sexual relations with your Aunt, what it is talking about.  Yet this particular act is not listed.


Except, of course, in 18:6 and 18:17.  Unless you have found some reason to believe that the people of the time (not today, the Isrealites to whom Moses was speaking) would have understood a man's duaghter's daughter was a close relation (per 18:10), but not the daughter herself (per Nuck:imagination).





> There are 2 possible reasons for this.  Father Daughter sex, in society, was not prohibited.  Or at least not prohibited enough by society to warrant the drastic punishments that are called out for other variations of Biblical incest (this is the more likely scenario).
> Second possibility, the Council of Nicea, when it built the current Bible, didnt use the verses.  It would be a hard sell to have S&G as this example of what happens when you dont follow God, when his own Just and Rightous survivor, who was willing to allow his virginal daughters to be raped by the mob, committed acts that would be considered a Wicked (having sexual relations with his close relatives).


The third, and clearly most obvious possibility, is that the verses actually are there as clear as can be, and you have a blind spot to them because admitting you're wrong here takes away some of your internal justification to not believe.  Not all of it, for sure, but some of it. And, you could handle that.  It would make you question your lack of faith again.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Yes some do.  But, as this thread (in the wrong forum) has shown the Scientific Process covers and corrects the results when found to be in error.


Again, please provide the test that makes macro-evolution science.

Without a valid test, it holds no more scientific value than ID.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Why Macro-Evolution?  You already purport to believe in Micro-Evolution
> 
> Macro evolution = Micro evolution on a larger scale.


  No, that's not what it is.

Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

Perhaps this is why you allow yourself to be wrong so often on here - you don't even know the basics of the conversation.  


> If your talking about Common Descendent, we've already discussed Mitochondrial Eve.  It is interesting you'll use Science when you think (wrongly) its working for you but then ignore it when it goes against your belief.


Sort of like macro-evolution and ID for you - each having the same scientific background, but you think one is smarter and more scientific than the other.

It's not.





> If you read through the thread you'll see your circular argument was refuted, you would rather stay on the merry go round.


Neither of those is true.  Read it again





> More reading (for you to ignore) on evolution Talk-Origins


Interesting that you think _*I*_ would ignore this one, yet it has a clear explaination of micro- vs macro- evolution in it, and you still didn't understand that basic difference.

However, it suggests that predictions, based on a theory, can be "proof" of the theory.  Until it can repudiate all other potential theories that could cause the same results, this is not a true claim in the essay.


----------



## This_person

Nuck, I've got to ask.....

You've admitted one of your pet theories, that the Bible does not preclude sex between a father and his daughter, is not actually true by your own words.

You've proven you don't know the difference between micro and macro evolution.

What is it, exactly, you get out of humiliating yourself in this forum?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You might want to reread that, macroevolution isnt some other theory, its Micro-Evolution (which you profess to agree with) on steroids.


No, it's still not.





> Scientests dont dispute Macro-Evolution, its a Creationism construct


Did I say scientists dispute it?





> In other words, creationists use the term Macro-Evolution, in defense of their circular arguments.


Regardless of who says it, there _*is*_ a difference.





> Your right, but not in the way you think.  Evolution is a scientific process, ID is a made up fairy tale, you continue to try and equate the two but thats dishonesty.


No, I call a spade a spade.

There is no "test" for macroevolution.  Microevolutionary tests have been conducted, and microevolution occurs.  Yet, macroevolution has never been observed, only empiracally derived at.  This makes it [ahem] different.

If there is a test for macroevolution, please provide it.





> Actually it does show your refusal to admit your "Gotcha" actually hurt your own argument and your inability to understand the theories and concepts being discussed.


This, from the person who doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro evolution.  


> You might want to use a dictionary the next time you ignore a source.  You clearly do not understand the concepts being discussed on Talk Origins.  Especially since it details why your Creationism/Intelligen Design fairy tale is not a Scientific Theory.


It discusses it from the theory that macro-evolution is already correct, and ID is already wrong.

Again, show me the test, repeatable and peer reviewable.  The exact same data derived from empiracal observations fully supports ID (not Creation, ID).


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You have yet to post the verses that prohibit Father Daughter sex. You have posted your interpretated versions of verses, but not verses that explicitly and expressly prohibit it, the same way Father and Daughter-in-Law sex is defined.
> 
> Until you do, your being disengenous and dishonest, and it shows your not interested in anything other than displaying your ignorance of the Bible you claim to follow.


18:6 and 18:17.  You agreed that Lot would be "in violation"  (YOUR words), but said he would only be "in violation" IF your fictional criteria were met.

Talk about dishonesty





> Really where did i do that?  Was it when i used your own source to prove that Macro-evolution is nothing more than a Creationism argument used like a life ring, in order to hold on to their ignorance as long as possible?


You proved you don't know the difference by not knowing the difference (saying one is the other on steroids)





> When it happens i'll let you know.
> 
> What is it you get out of coming onto a religion forum and admitting you have no clue about what is actually in the Bible you profess to follow?


I've posted nothing but Bible verses to back up my claims, and Bible verses to back up my thoughts of _potnential_ explainations where no explaination is given.

YOU, however, have posted fiction as though it were fact:
Please provide the verse that Cain married his sister, or even had a sister.
Please provide the verse that says mom needs to still be alive for a man's daughter to still be his close relation
please provide the verse that says mom and dad need to be sexually active for dad's daughter to be his close relation.

You can't do it, yet you claim _*I*_ am the one not using bilibcal verses.

My God, man.  Try and accept your failures with some self-respect left (if you can).


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I see your now left to petty insults instead of discussing your failures to show Biblical verses that prohibit Father Daughter sex.


No, I just get tired of being called a liar, or a fabricator of fact, etc., when I'm not doing it and the accuser IS doing it.

18:6 says "close relation", not "incest".  No where does it say nor imply that it is giving the definition of incest in the follow-up verses.

Father daughter sex cannot be accomplished without violating 18:17, and you said so yourself here.

I provide the verse that suggests that a father's daughter's daughter is a close relation, and ask with what "logic" you use to recognize that and yet still not see a daughter as a "close relation" per 18:6.  You've yet to answer that, except to say that you've "established" that your falsehood is true.

These are not insults.  These are the facts.  You claim I don't know the biblical verses, yet that's what I provide.  You claim that I don't know the difference between micro and macro evolution, when I provide you the difference.  You tell me I don't understand evolution, when I describe it exactly as you do with your link.

I'm not insulting you.  I'm stating the facts.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> I see your now left to petty insults instead of discussing your failures to show Biblical verses that prohibit Father Daughter sex.



C'mon Nucklesack - This has already been shown to you right from the portion in Leviticus:

*None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.* (Leviticus 18:6)

“According to the Torah, it is a sin to have sex with any relative, whether blood-related or not, with a neighbor's wife, with a member of the same sex (although the Torah uses the wording "with another man" and some would argue that it is only a sin for men to engage in homosexuality, but not women), with an animal, or with a woman during her menstrual cycle.” (Lv. 18:6-23).

Sexuality in Judaism

The penalty - *Stoning to death:* 
"One of the four methods of execution mentioned in the Torah. It is considered the severest of the death penalties, and many of the prohibitions that carry the death penalty are punishable by [stoning]." 

Source: The Talmud, The Steinsaltz Addition, A Reference Guide
Publisher: Random House 
Printing 1989 by the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications and Milta Books

Additionally, in staying with the Topic: *Darwin Was Wrong.*


----------



## fredcaudle

This_person said:


> *Was Darwin Wrong?​*​
> Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?



One thing is certain... both views can't be right.  Neither can be proved.  No one was there.  The Bible NEVER sets forth to prove creation.  It states the position that in the beginning God created...  Hebrews 11.3 says clearly, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
The "we" here are believers in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  It doesn't matter if the world rejects, can't believe, or thinks it non-intelligent... "we" by faith believe.
Evolution is by faith because it cannot be proven either.  It also cannot be replicated in a lab... it is by faith we choose...
Arguing back and forth is not going to make one person right and the other person wrong... neither person was THERE... it is by faith.  
I choose creation because one, I'm a believer; and two, I'm not willing to God a liar. If the whole world goes with evolution it doesn't change what was written 4,000 years ago (give or take a couple of years) nor does it change what I have established in my mind and heart by faith.  I doubt a strong believer in evolution will change either, by the way - for they have established in their heart and mind what they believe to be true.  And so the world moves forward.


----------



## Starman3000m

fredcaudle said:


> One thing is certain... both views can't be right.  Neither can be proved.  No one was there.  The Bible NEVER sets forth to prove creation.  It states the position that in the beginning God created...  Hebrews 11.3 says clearly, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
> The "we" here are believers in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  It doesn't matter if the world rejects, can't believe, or thinks it non-intelligent... "we" by faith believe.
> Evolution is by faith because it cannot be proven either.  It also cannot be replicated in a lab... it is by faith we choose...
> Arguing back and forth is not going to make one person right and the other person wrong... neither person was THERE... it is by faith.
> I choose creation because one, I'm a believer; and two, I'm not willing to God a liar. If the whole world goes with evolution it doesn't change what was written 4,000 years ago (give or take a couple of years) nor does it change what I have established in my mind and heart by faith.  I doubt a strong believer in evolution will change either, by the way - for they have established in their heart and mind what they believe to be true.  And so the world moves forward.



You make some great points. However one thing we can be sure of: 

God has already been proven to exist by His very interaction and Divine Intervention in the lives of those in Biblical accounts - most notably in the life and ministry of Jesus, and also in the lives of present-day believers.

I once asked Nucklesack to explain the intangible existence of a spirit and soul - asked whether he believed he has a spirit and soul. Still waiting for an answer on that one. (If he answered, I didn't see his response)

*The big question is:* If evolution to scientists is just a mere existence of humanoid life-form that evolved from a single cellular structure, where does the intangible/invisible realm of existence of a person's spirit and soul fit in with the theory of evolution?

If Nucklesack is correct, he has a heart but no soul!


----------



## fredcaudle

The big question is: If evolution to scientists is just a mere existence of humanoid life-form that evolved from a single cellular structure, where does the intangible/invisible realm of existence of a person's spirit and soul fit in with the theory of evolution?

For me, I've never heard where the cellular structure appeared from... where is the starting point's starting point in evolution? For me, God is... and in "ex-nihilo" 'out of nothing' made everything by His command.  

I'll have to let Nucklesack answer the soul question... I know in faith we have a soul - but I don't know the faith of evolution.


----------



## Starman3000m

fredcaudle said:


> I'll have to let Nucklesack answer the soul question... I know in faith we have a soul - but I don't know the faith of evolution.



Evolutionists haven't gotten to that part yet - about a person's soul and spirit. Poor souls (no pun intended) are still looking and "digging" (pun intended this time) for solutions to prove Darwin's theory of Evolution.

*Darwin was wrong.*


----------



## BeHereNow

Starman3000m said:


> You make some great points. However one thing we can be sure of:
> 
> God has already been proven to exist by His very interaction and Divine Intervention in the lives of those in Biblical accounts - most notably in the life and ministry of Jesus, and also in the lives of present-day believers.
> 
> I once asked Nucklesack to explain the intangible existence of a spirit and soul - asked whether he believed he has a spirit and soul. Still waiting for an answer on that one. (If he answered, I didn't see his response)
> 
> *The big question is:* If evolution to scientists is just a mere existence of humanoid life-form that evolved from a single cellular structure, where does the intangible/invisible realm of existence of a person's spirit and soul fit in with the theory of evolution?
> 
> If Nucklesack is correct, he has a heart but no soul!


And by the same reasoning (?) we can conclude that Leprechauns exist, for there is many an Irishman who has interacted with them.
Even some non-Irish.

Now I wonder,  how many non-Christians have had an encounter with Jesus.

Many things do not "fit in" with the theory of evolution.

It trys to say nothing about the greatest rock band of the 60's, for example.

It trys to say nothing about the moral values of humans.

It trys to say nothing about why there are over 38,000 denominations of Christianity, any yet some Christians can find none to suit them.

It trys to say nothing about a 'soul' of humans, other animals, or plants.

Evolution stems from science, and the concept of 'souls' stems from religion and or philosophy.
Different disipllines.


----------



## Starman3000m

BeHereNow said:


> Evolution stems from science, and the concept of 'souls' stems from religion and or philosophy.
> Different disipllines.



*However:* *There Is Only ONE TRUTH.*


----------



## thatguy

fredcaudle said:


> I'll have to let Nucklesack answer the soul question... I know in faith we have a soul - but I don't know the* faith* of evolution.



evolution is a theory, no faith involved. I know it makes you guys feel beeter to say it is somehow faith based, but it is clearly a scientific theory- no faith.


as for the soul, it is mearly a human construct, something that was created to explain a phenomenon that was unexplainable at the time. Additioanly, the soul has been used to offer the false hope of eternal life and to hold up as something deserving of eternal punishment should we choose not to follow the ancient teachings of religion.

selfawareness is a biatch, and being aware of ones mortality is even more so. the soul is just a way for us to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that life doesn't end when we die.


----------



## Starman3000m

thatguy said:


> evolution is a theory, no faith involved.



Excuse me! No faith involved whereby others believe that Darwin was right?

*If you believe in evolution,* you definitely have faith that Darwin's theory has the most probable explanation for the existence of life-forms and you are led to have faith that God does not exist and faith that there is no such thing as a soul. 

Evolutionists are still working to prove their faith that Darwin's theory was correct to the point that they harbour contempt and sarcasm toward those who believe and know that God exists as taught by Jesus and that there is a spiritual realm involved in life.


----------



## BeHereNow

Starman3000m said:


> *However:* *There Is Only ONE TRUTH.*



And which one of the 38,000 versions of Christiaity would you say is the OneTRUTH?


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> Excuse me! No faith involved whereby others believe that Darwin was right?
> 
> *If you believe in evolution,* you definitely have faith that Darwin's theory has the most probable explanation for the existence of life-forms and you are led to have faith that God does not exist and faith that there is no such thing as a soul.
> 
> Evolutionists are still working to prove their faith that Darwin's theory was correct to the point that they harbour contempt and sarcasm toward those who believe and know that God exists as taught by Jesus and that there is a spiritual realm involved in life.



i harbour no contempt or sarcasm for believers. But i do understand the difference between religion and science, something you obviously unable to do.

to pretend that science is faith based might make you feel better, but it is not in any way an accurate statement.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> to pretend that science is faith based might make you feel better, but it is not in any way an accurate statement.


Sign on with your MPD and read this - 

Please provide the test, repeatable and peer reviewable, that shows mankind and their dogs could have each evolved, even over a large number of generations, from a single celled life form (which we have no idea how formed).

Without a repeatable, peer reviewable test which can disprove it, it's just faith.  This is the argument that says ID is faith, and macro-evolution falls on the exact same premise.


----------



## Starman3000m

BeHereNow said:


> And which one of the 38,000 versions of Christiaity would you say is the OneTRUTH?



Are there really that many or does it just seem that way? Fact is, there are many who claim to be "Christian" but who are not.

*The One Truth:*

*True belief* is the one that accepts exclusively that Jesus Is The Way The Truth and The Life and that No Man Can Come Unto The Father Except Through Him. (John 14:6)

The person who becomes a Child of God is the one who acknowledges that he/she is unable to be good enough to earn salvation under merit of "good works" and willingly repents and surrenders their life to the Divine Guidance of God through faith in Christ and through the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God;

A True Believer is the person that believes that Jesus is whom He claimed:

- The Divine and sinless Son of the Living God;
- The prophesied Jewish Messiah;
- The Lamb of God whose crucifixion was meant to be as the only acceptable Atonement for the sins of mankind who trust in Him;
- His prediction that He would be killed by the religious leaders;
- His prediction that He would rise from the dead unto Eternal Life;
- His promise that all who believe in Him shall not perish but also have Eternal Life;
- His promise that He has sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the life of a believer whereby a person is Born-Again, as He claimed one must be;
- His warning that in this world, His followers would face trials and tribulations;
- His promise that His Grace is sufficient for us;
- His promise that He will return again to establish God's True Peace on earth;

and many more promises taught by the New Testament Jesus.

True Christianity is NOT a Religion; it is a Spiritual Relationship with the *Living God *through Faith and acceptance of the New Testament Jesus.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Sign on with your MPD and read this -
> 
> Please provide the test, repeatable and peer reviewable, that shows mankind and their dogs could have each evolved, even over a large number of generations, from a single celled life form (which we have no idea how formed).
> 
> Without a repeatable, peer reviewable test which can disprove it, it's just faith.  This is the argument that says ID is faith, and macro-evolution falls on the exact same premise.



Where do you get this idea that a theory must have a repeatable, peer reviewable test?

Let's look at the definition of science again.


> sci⋅ence  [sahy-uhns]  Show IPA
> –noun
> 1.	a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
> *2.	systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.*
> 3.	any of the branches of natural or physical science.
> 4.	systematized knowledge in general.
> 5.	knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
> 6.	a particular branch of knowledge.
> 7.	skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.



So we can experiment and observe micro-evolution correct? Sure. We can observe the results of macro-evolution. A theory is born when we extrapolate micro-evolution experiments and macro-evolution observation. That is the same reason the theory of gravity exists. We can show "micro-gravity" in simple experiments, like an apple falling from a tree. However we observe 
"macro-gravity" by observing orbits and planet gravitational pull and extrapolating that with our "micro-gravity" experiments. Please do not bring your obvious misunderstanding of scientific theory into this discussion.


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> Where do you get this idea that a theory must have a repeatable, peer reviewable test?
> 
> Let's look at the definition of science again.
> 
> 
> So we can experiment and observe micro-evolution correct? Sure. We can observe the results of macro-evolution. A theory is born when we extrapolate micro-evolution experiments and macro-evolution observation. That is the same reason the theory of gravity exists. We can show "micro-gravity" in simple experiments, like an apple falling from a tree. However we observe
> "macro-gravity" by observing orbits and planet gravitational pull and extrapolating that with our "micro-gravity" experiments. Please do not bring your obvious misunderstanding of scientific theory into this discussion.



Um - There's a slight flaw in the definition of science that you posted.

Sure, science can be defined as extrapolating knowledge and conclusions from provable facts that are the result of consistent and observable experimentation (cause and effect) *HOWEVER,* there is no mention in the definition that science also attempts to maintain that an unproven theory is FACT as in the case of evolution or in the case of how the universe was created.

In other words, evolution and the origins of the heavens are being taught more as a fact than a theory - and people call it "science".


----------



## BeHereNow

Starman3000m said:


> Are there really that many or does it just seem that way? Fact is, there are many who claim to be "Christian" but who are not.
> 
> *The One Truth:*
> 
> *True belief* is the one that accepts exclusively that Jesus Is The Way The Truth and The Life and that No Man Can Come Unto The Father Except Through Him. (John 14:6)
> 
> The person who becomes a Child of God is the one who acknowledges that he/she is unable to be good enough to earn salvation under merit of "good works" and willingly repents and surrenders their life to the Divine Guidance of God through faith in Christ and through the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God;
> 
> A True Believer is the person that believes that Jesus is whom He claimed:
> 
> - The Divine and sinless Son of the Living God;
> - The prophesied Jewish Messiah;
> - The Lamb of God whose crucifixion was meant to be as the only acceptable Atonement for the sins of mankind who trust in Him;
> - His prediction that He would be killed by the religious leaders;
> - His prediction that He would rise from the dead unto Eternal Life;
> - His promise that all who believe in Him shall not perish but also have Eternal Life;
> - His promise that He has sent the Holy Spirit to indwell the life of a believer whereby a person is Born-Again, as He claimed one must be;
> - His warning that in this world, His followers would face trials and tribulations;
> - His promise that His Grace is sufficient for us;
> - His promise that He will return again to establish God's True Peace on earth;
> 
> and many more promises taught by the New Testament Jesus.
> 
> True Christianity is NOT a Religion; it is a Spiritual Relationship with the *Living God *through Faith and acceptance of the New Testament Jesus.


Would you please give me a definition for the term 'Religion'.
Thanks


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Where do you get this idea that a theory must have a repeatable, peer reviewable test?


That's the reason ID is considered "not a science".

I'm not debating whether macro-evolution is actually a science, I'm simply holding that theory to the same standard that ID is held to.

Now, using the definition of science you provided, surely you would agree that ID is a science, right?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> That's the reason ID is considered "not a science".
> 
> I'm not debating whether macro-evolution is actually a science, I'm simply holding that theory to the same standard that ID is held to.
> 
> Now, using the definition of science you provided, surely you would agree that ID is a science, right?



I have never observed or heard of an observation or experiment that has shown that a god, supernatural force or magic has existed or played any role in our life, or existence.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I'm not debating whether macro-evolution is actually a science, I'm simply holding that theory to the same standard that ID is held to.



2nd post



This_person said:


> Once again, please provide me the repeatable, peer reviewed test that demonstrates all of life that currently exists or ever did exist on this planet came from a single source of life (who's origin is completely conjecture to begin with).
> 
> Once that test comes in, this will be science.  Until then, it's as much religion as Genesis.  Pure conjecture, speculation, with it's main source of information coming from "well, we're here aren't we".



There are plenty more.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> I have never observed or heard of an observation or experiment that has shown that a god, supernatural force or magic has existed or played any role in our life, or existence.


Observation, as with macro-evolution, is in the eye of the beholder.

If we theorize that a single entity created the universe, and all life we know of, we would find great similarities in life forms - even where there is no reason for the similarity.  

Oh my gosh, we can look at several life forms that have similarities where there is no biological need for similarity.

Now, if we surmise macro-evolution is the cause for this, we will find the same observation.  

We each create a reason, based on our theory, that fits the observed data.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> 2nd post
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty more.


Yep.  I was told over and over again that science requires the test, so I ask for the same test for macro-evolution.  

Good catch of exactly what I told you.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> *Observation, as with macro-evolution, is in the eye of the beholder.*
> 
> If we theorize that a single entity created the universe, and all life we know of, we would find great similarities in life forms - even where there is no reason for the similarity.
> 
> Oh my gosh, we can look at several life forms that have similarities where there is no biological need for similarity.
> 
> Now, if we surmise macro-evolution is the cause for this, we will find the same observation.
> 
> We each create a reason, based on our theory, that fits the observed data.



Not scientific observation.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Not scientific observation.


Read the rest of the post.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Read the rest of the post.



Scientific observation:

ID:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon  -  Diversity of life
(Check)
2. Making observations of the phenomenon  -  DNA
(Check)
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon  -  God
(Check)
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis  -  oh ####
(Fail)
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment  -  #### #### #### ####
(Fail)
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment  -  Impossible


Evolution:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon  -  Diversity of life
(Check)
2. Making observations of the phenomenon  -  DNA
(Check)
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon  -  Evolution
(Check)
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis  -  Small changes over time
(Check)
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment  -  Micro-Evolution
(Check)
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment  -  Theory of evolution
(Check)


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Read the rest of the post.



I did read your whole post. Wanna try it on mine?



OoberBoober said:


> So we can experiment and observe micro-evolution correct? Sure. We can observe the results of macro-evolution. A theory is born when we extrapolate micro-evolution experiments and macro-evolution observation. That is the same reason the theory of gravity exists. We can show "micro-gravity" in simple experiments, like an apple falling from a tree. However we observe
> "macro-gravity" by observing orbits and planet gravitational pull and extrapolating that with our "micro-gravity" experiments. Please do not bring your obvious misunderstanding of scientific theory into this discussion.



Do you also believe gravity is a religion?


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Scientific observation:
> 
> ID:
> 1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon  -  Diversity of life
> (Check)
> 2. Making observations of the phenomenon  -  DNA
> (Check)
> 3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon  -  God
> (Check)
> 4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis  -  oh ####
> (Fail)


Where do you see the failure?





> 5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment  -  #### #### #### ####
> (Fail)
> 6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment  -  Impossible
> 
> 
> Evolution:
> 1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon  -  Diversity of life
> (Check)
> 2. Making observations of the phenomenon  -  DNA
> (Check)
> 3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon  -  Evolution
> (Check)
> 4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis  -  Small changes over time
> (Check)
> 5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment  -  Micro-Evolution
> (Check)
> 6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment  -  Theory of evolution
> (Check)


So, that works for micro, how about macro?    That IS the discussion, after all.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> I did read your whole post. Wanna try it on mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also believe gravity is a religion?


I do not believe gravity is a religion.

There is also no such thing as micro and macro gravity.  There's just gravity.  See, the gravity that changes the direction of the comets (if it _is_ gravity and not a space-time warp - see Hawkings) is the same gravity that pulls the apple down.

There is a distinction between micro and macro evolution.  Micro evolution is how a given species changes.  Macro evolution is a species changing to a different order of species (like gradually stepping up from a single cell to a sponge, to an aquatic animal, to a land mammel that uses tools - over many generations of mutations).

So, trying it on your example would be pointless, because it doesn't fit the discussion.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Where do you see the failure?


Key word logical.


> So, that works for micro, how about macro?    That IS the discussion, after all.



4. *Predicting* a logical consequence of the hypothesis - *Small changes over time*
(Check)
5. Testing the *prediction* in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment - Micro-Evolution
(Check)

Sorry but this is perfectly scientifically sound.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Key word logical.


:shrug:  The fact that we observe a bat's wings and our own hands as similar fits with perfect logic that they were both designed by the same maker.

You're issue is that you disagree with the logic, not that you can refute it.





> 4. *Predicting* a logical consequence of the hypothesis - *Small changes over time*
> (Check)
> 5. Testing the *prediction* in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment - Micro-Evolution
> (Check)
> 
> Sorry but this is perfectly scientifically sound.


Yes, it perfectly, soundly allows for me to be much taller than my great great great grandparents statistically would have been.

However, it is meaningless to the concept that my dog and I each evolved, in a different track, but ultimately back from the same level of single celled organism.  Completely meaningless.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> :shrug:  The fact that we observe a bat's wings and our own hands as similar fits with perfect logic that they were both designed by the same maker.
> 
> You're issue is that you disagree with the logic, not that you can refute it.Yes, it perfectly, soundly allows for me to be much taller than my great great great grandparents statistically would have been.
> 
> However, it is meaningless to the concept that my dog and I each evolved, in a different track, but ultimately back from the same level of single celled organism.  Completely meaningless.



Being  must be easy.


----------



## Starman3000m

BeHereNow said:


> Would you please give me a definition for the term 'Religion'.
> Thanks




*Religion:*

A set belief in any form or source of power and/or existence of deity(ies) that is/are not restricted to the confines of human limitations but transcend(s) such boundaries. Religious beliefs develop from mankind's inner search for answers as to the purpose of life and may be the result of practiced superstition or spirituality. From such application, many belief systems of religions have been introduced into the world. Adherents follow the teachings of their specific religion/denomination through unquestioned indoctrination.

Religion keeps a person captive to following the beliefs that he/she has been indoctrinated to accept and believe - without question, yet never having the "inner search" completely answered.

In the final analysis, *There Is Only One TRUTH.*

If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, you will be Free Indeed.


----------



## thatguy

OoberBoober said:


> Being  must be easy.



when he sees a car and an 18 wheeler, logic tells him that they were also both designed by the same maker


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Being  must be easy.


I wouldn't know, why don't you tell me how it is for you.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I wouldn't know, why don't you tell me how it is for you.



:sigh: Smarter people than me and much smarter people than you have debated this issue for what, 100 years now? You are not any special case.
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> :sigh: Smarter people than me and much smarter people than you have debated this issue for what, 100 years now? You are not any special case.
> Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yup, micro evolution.

People thought to be much smarter than both of us, at the time, thought the world was flat.  Lasted a lot longer than 100 years.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Yup, micro evolution.
> 
> People thought to be much smarter than both of us, at the time, thought the world was flat.  Lasted a lot longer than 100 years.



You are the only person who thinks there is a difference between micro and macroevolution.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> You are the only person who thinks there is a difference between micro and macroevolution.


I don't think so


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I don't think so



Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> I don't think so





> A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.


from your own source. What is macroevolution?



> All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Good theory.  Only a few holes.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> from your own source. What is macroevolution?


Your point was whether people see a difference.  You said they don't.

They do was my point.

You don't even agree with those you agree with.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Good theory.  Only a few holes.



 and you made fun of me for using wikipedia.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Your point was whether people see a difference.  You said they don't.
> 
> They do was my point.
> 
> You don't even agree with those you agree with.



You really must be an imbecile to not see that this says macroevolution is just microevolution over time.


> A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.


----------



## OoberBoober

Your argument has be destroyed... Please do us all a favor and just call it (ID) faith and walk away.


----------



## Beta84

If ID was really present, then why are there so many effin retards in this thread?  Argument destroyed.  Thanks for playing.

Can't believe this thread is still going with the same garble.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> You really must be an imbecile to not see that this says macroevolution is just microevolution over time.


They are different.  It suggests a theory that sufficient microevolution could lead to macroevolution, backed up by no scientific evidence, merely empiracle data and a theory.  That same data could have occured by other means, thus it needs to be tested.

No test exists.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Your argument has be destroyed... Please do us all a favor and just call it (ID) faith and walk away.


I never argued ID was not faith.

In fact, I argued it was.  And, based on the same reasons ID is faith, so is macro-evolution.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> If ID was really present, then why are there so many effin retards in this thread?  Argument destroyed.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> Can't believe this thread is still going with the same garble.


Free will


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> You are the only person who thinks there is a difference between micro and macroevolution.



*"So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution?"*

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Micro vs. Macro Evolution



BTW: *Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.*


----------



## Beta84

This_person said:


> Free will



no, I mean that some people are clearly far more moronic and retarded than others.  Why not create everyone with relative intelligence?  Instead, I have to deal with all these morons yapping like they actually know anything and can somehow *prove it *with books written 2000 years ago in a time where historical accuracy is VERY questionable, and highly disputed.  

I have no problem with people having their own beliefs, but when people are 100% convinced that they have irrefutable evidence, it turns from someone who is a believer to something entirely different and far less glorious.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> They are different.  It suggests a theory that sufficient microevolution could lead to macroevolution, backed up by no scientific evidence, merely empiracle data and a theory.  That same data could have occured by other means, thus it needs to be tested.
> 
> No test exists.



 Please show me the test that proves that the moon is orbiting the earth because of gravity. There is not one cause it does not exist. But I can test an apple falling to the ground. And I can observe the moons orbit. By your logic gravity exists but the moon orbits earth because of god. Now why would this be... Because you are ignorant and cannot understand gravity on a large scale. This scares you so you call it god.

Oh i mean evolution


----------



## OoberBoober

Starman3000m said:


> *"So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution?"*
> 
> TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Micro vs. Macro Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: *Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.*



Because I get all my evolutionary theory from creationist websites... Please remove your self from discussion and let the big boys talk. Go back a few post and read up on some real sources.

I would have more luck getting the brick wall beside me to evolve into something intelligent in 4 billion years and have an intelligent discussion of evolution with it, than talking with you.


----------



## This_person

Beta84 said:


> no, I mean that some people are clearly far more moronic and retarded than others.  Why not create everyone with relative intelligence?  Instead, I have to deal with all these morons yapping like they actually know anything and can somehow *prove it *with books written 2000 years ago in a time where historical accuracy is VERY questionable, and highly disputed.
> 
> I have no problem with people having their own beliefs, but when people are 100% convinced that they have irrefutable evidence, it turns from someone who is a believer to something entirely different and far less glorious.



I fully agree with you there's no proving it.

As to why there's relative intelligence - well, that goes to design of humans.  If we were designed by an entity, it's logical we'd be different (not robotically the same) if that was what the designer chose.

If we all evolved similarly over hundreds of millions of years (the billions thing is a bit out there when it comes to animal life), it would be logical to conclude we'd all be about the same, having come from the same miniscule gene pool - or equally logical that the process would be unsustainable in our differences over such a long period of mutations (again, due to teh miniscule gene pool to begin with and the infinite number of mutations we could have undergone in the process).  Anything in the middle, given the timeline and potential variables, is unlikely.


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> Because I get all my evolutionary theory from creationist websites... Please remove your self from discussion and let the big boys talk. Go back a few post and read up on some real sources.
> 
> I would have more luck getting the brick wall beside me to evolve into something intelligent in 4 billion years than having a discussion with you.





Explanations for the theory of evolution continually change with every "new" finding and then you have to re-adjust your previous belief to the latest one printed in "Science and Evolution Digest".

The only observable thing that really evolves is "scientific speculation" from one theory to another.

My God Never Changes nor does His explanation of the origins of life. Same explanation over the last 4,000 years.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Please show me the test that proves that the moon is orbiting the earth because of gravity. There is not one cause it does not exist. But I can test an apple falling to the ground. And I can observe the moons orbit. By your logic gravity exists but the moon orbits earth because of god. Now why would this be... Because you are ignorant and cannot understand gravity on a large scale. This scares you so you call it god.
> 
> Oh i mean evolution


Did you look up warped time/space?  It is entirely possible that gravity alone does not account for the moon's orbit.

However, if the moon is orbiting entirely because of gravity, it would be the same gravity that pulled the apple down out of your hand.

There is no apparent micro and macro gravity.  There's just gravity.

Now, it's theoriezed that there are more than the four dimensions (including time) that we understand - a total of 9, I believe (memory is not my strong point).  However, the specifics of that are a bit difficult to follow.  I feel confident you couldn't follow that if you can't follow that the currently accepted theory is that there is only gravity, not macro and micro gravity. But, look it up and give it a try.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Because I get all my evolutionary theory from creationist websites...


You get your ID theory from evolutionary websites, why would you not get your evolutionary theory from ID websites?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> You get your ID theory from evolutionary websites, why would you not get your evolutionary theory from ID websites?



Because I get my sources from scientific websites.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Did you look up warped time/space?  It is entirely possible that gravity alone does not account for the moon's orbit.
> 
> However, if the moon is orbiting entirely because of gravity, it would be the same gravity that pulled the apple down out of your hand.
> 
> There is no apparent micro and macro gravity.  There's just gravity.
> 
> Now, it's theoriezed that there are more than the four dimensions (including time) that we understand - a total of 9, I believe (memory is not my strong point).  However, the specifics of that are a bit difficult to follow.  I feel confident you couldn't follow that if you can't follow that the currently accepted theory is that there is only gravity, not macro and micro gravity. But, look it up and give it a try.



Sorry you are the one making the argument for micro and macro. I am just showing you your same argument applied to a different scenario. Thank you for agreeing it is absolutely ridiculous. And there are 10-11 explainable dimensions based on string theory.


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> Because I get my sources from scientific websites.



Yep - the ones that thrive on trying to explain unproven theories. And you believe things that the authors of the scientific articles aren't really even sure of.


----------



## OoberBoober

Starman3000m said:


> Yep - the ones that thrive on trying to explain unproven theories. And you believe things that the authors of the scientific articles aren't really even sure of.



 If you are real I need to buy you a beer... You are a funny mother####er.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Sorry you are the one making the argument for micro and macro. I am just showing you your same argument applied to a different scenario. Thank you for agreeing it is absolutely ridiculous. And there are 10-11 explainable dimensions based on string theory.


There are specific definition differences between micro and macro evolution.

There's just gravity.

Equating the two ideas (one that valid, one that's not) is what's absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks for the memory jog.


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> If you are real I need to buy you a beer... You are a funny mother####er.




Cheers my friend!


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> There are specific definition differences between micro and macro evolution.
> 
> There's just gravity.
> 
> Equating the two ideas (one that valid, one that's not) is what's absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> Thanks for the memory jog.



Lets go back to your own source... 



> A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.


What is macroevolution?

Evolution which is, at its base, change over time in living things.
Micro-evolution is the above but applied at a small scale.
Macro-evolution is the above but applied at a large scale.
The scale being time.

Gravity which is, at its base, things being attracted to other things.
Micro-gravity  is the above but applied at a small scale.
Macro-gravity  is the above but applied at a large scale.
The scale being size.

Sorry but this is perfectly analogous.


----------



## Starman3000m

OoberBoober said:


> Lets go back to your own source...
> 
> 
> What is macroevolution?
> 
> Evolution which is, at its base, change over time in living things.
> Micro-evolution is the above but applied at a small scale.
> Macro-evolution is the above but applied at a large scale.
> The scale being time.
> 
> Gravity which is, at its base, things being attracted to other things.
> Micro-gravity  is the above but applied at a small scale.
> Macro-gravity  is the above but applied at a large scale.
> The scale being size.
> 
> Sorry but this is perfectly analogous.



*The process may include "Time" but the key factor must include New Genetic Information:*

“In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information.


*Information is the key factor* if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes.[3] This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen.

If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ‘microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down.”

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Micro vs. Macro Evolution


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Evolution which is, at its base, change over time in living things.
> Micro-evolution is the above but applied at a small scale.
> Macro-evolution is the above but applied at a large scale.
> The scale being time.


The difference between micro and macro evolution is whether it is change within a species (micro evolution), or change transitioning from one species to another of a different order (sponge to puppy - or, less sarcastically, sponge to the gazzillion things between sponge and puppy that caused the species of dog to exist).

Micro is the average height of humans over generations.
Macro is the transition from sea to land creature.

The scale is not time.  The scale is within or beyond a species.





> Gravity which is, at its base, things being attracted to other things.
> Micro-gravity  is the above but applied at a small scale.
> Macro-gravity  is the above but applied at a large scale.
> The scale being size.
> 
> Sorry but this is perfectly analogous.


The exact same force, in the exact same strength, is being applied to the moon, you, and the apple.  The effect is different because of the difference in size and distance of the target articles.  However, there is absolutely no difference in the gravity as it applies to earth's gravity on the moon and earth's gravity on an apple.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> The scale is not time.  The scale is within or beyond a species.



Not according to your very own source.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Not according to your very own source.





Macroevolution generally refers to evolution *above the species level*.
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — *within a single population*



Looks to me like it says it very plainly.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Macroevolution generally refers to evolution *above the species level*.
> Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — *within a single population*
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me like it says it very plainly.


...


> The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given *enough time*.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> ...


Your quote is about a potential (but entirely untested) explaination.  It has nothing to do with the definition/difference between micro and macro evolution.

And, that still wouldn't account for the new micro and macro gravities you've discovered


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Your quote is about a *potential (but entirely untested) explaination*.  It has nothing to do with the definition/difference between micro and macro evolution.
> 
> And, that still wouldn't account for the new micro and macro gravities you've discovered



Sounds pretty similar to the moon. Can you please point me to the test that explains why the moon gravitates around the earth? Please keep proving your self wrong.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> Sounds pretty similar to the moon. Can you please point me to the test that explains why the moon gravitates around the earth? Please keep proving your self wrong.




Why are you fixated on gravity?  Do you doubt it?


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> Why are you fixated on gravity?  Do you doubt it?



Cop out.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> No because, just as with the Biblical Verses, he uses his own interpretation and alternative..... err potential variations to come up with his conclusion.
> 
> He doesnt understand that Macro-Evolution is the entire scope of a bunch of micro-evolutionary changes wrapped into a package.
> 
> Below is a simplified example of Macro-Evolution
> 
> A reptile developing mutations (slowly) that causes excess skin between its front legs and body
> Further mutations occurand the animal is able to glide
> Further mutations occur and feathers develop
> Further mutations occur and a redimentary bird like form
> Further mutations occur and the bird like form is actually flying
> 
> 
> His, incorrect, understanding of Macro-Evolution is the reptile *poofs* into a bird. This is not what Macro-Evolution is, but he continues to define it as such.
> 
> Macro-Evolution is all the changes that lead from the sponge into the eventual puppy.  It does not define that there are millions of micro-evolutionary changes that occured along the way, just that Reptiles evolved (eventually) into Birds.



You have yet to explain whether you believe you have a spirit and soul and how evolutionists contend with the possibility that a spiritual/supernatural realm exists.

BTW: *Darwin Was Wrong.*


----------



## fredcaudle

thatguy said:


> evolution is a theory, no faith involved. I know it makes you guys feel beeter to say it is somehow faith based, but it is clearly a scientific theory- no faith.
> 
> A theory is a fancy word for faith... a theory is a belief until proven... Science hasn't proven evolution so therefore one still "therorizes" - i.e. has faith - that one is right in evolution.
> 
> Believers in creation can't prove either, but like science, we have great evidence - so we believe - i.e. have faith we are right in creation.
> 
> It is not about feeling better, it is about what a word means.  Theory is not fact and it is not seen... (a theory is based on a set of assumptions - knowledge-) therefore the definition of faith is believing in something not seen... NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FIRST MAN EVOLVE - NOR HAS ANY SCIENTIST WENT INTO A ROOM WITH NOTHING AND EVOLVED SOMETHING.  Only math can assert fact - for 1 plus 1 is ALWAYS going to equal two regardless of your religion or philosophy.
> 
> PS - "You guys" I'm assuming you are trying to put down a different group of people who differ with your beleif... bad assumption - I enjoy studying science I just don't elevate it over God.


----------



## Starman3000m

fredcaudle said:


> ...  Only math can assert fact - for 1 plus 1 is ALWAYS going to equal two regardless of your religion or philosophy.



Don't forget: 1x1x1 = 1

*For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.* (1 John 5:7)

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:8)

Similarily: Many people believe they have:

1.) A Body;
2.) A Spirit;
3.) A Soul.

These three facets comprise not three people but One Individual.

Just a thought.


----------



## Im_Me

Saturday, September 12  
Darwin, Science and Society 
2:30 p.m. - CMM Auditorium 

Evolution and Original Sin: The 'Problem of Evil' Solved by Dr. Daryl P. Domning

The Structure of the Universe through the eyes of the Bible by Dr. Stephen J. Godfrey

Questions in Genesis: Creationism and Biblical Interpretation by Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith

Lectures hosted by the CMM Fossil Club and sponsored by the
Clarissa and Lincoln Dryden Endowment for Paleontology


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> BTW: While Darwin may have been proven wrong, using the Scientific Process, it does not dispute Evolution.  It only disputes Darwins version of it.



Yep, you are right; it doesn't dispute the theory of Evolution but still the Scientific Process doesn't really prove it either nor has it been able to. *It remains a Theory.* So, the theory remains the same - Science trying to prove something that is unable to be proven. But as long as funding is available the search will continue. 

*Meanwhile,* there is more proven evidence for the existence of God and Intelligent Design from the many accounts of Divine Intervention in the life of mankind.



> And i apologize i didnt realize you asked me a question.  For me the Soul is a manmade belief as an explanation for conciousness.



Consciousness is the inner self-awareness that "guides" ones actions for recognizing Good from Evil and choosing to do right from wrong.

Was your conscience pre-programmed to know Good from Evil and Right from Wrong from the day you were born or are those things something you had to be taught through some set of rules and guidelines in obedience to the authority that set those rules?

If God is credited for establishing the Ten Commandments, as mentioned in Torah, does your conscience tell you you don't have to obey them because God does not exist and has no Authority over mankind?

Whose laws do you follow when dealing with fellowman?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.


So, if we can agree that micro-evolution occurs, we could hypothesize that the original source of the life involved in micro-evolution was designed vice random happenstance.  We could use the observed similarities in design of many animals as an example of a common originator's style, or design process.  We could surmise that the distance of the earth from the sun being exactly perfect for our life to occur, the ratio of water and earth providing the exact atmosphere we need to protect our life from the harmfulness of the sun, the fact that water has unique freezing properties that are essential to continued life on the planet, etc., as being far too specific to merely be a random act.  We could note that the lack of any reason to suspect life on other planets so far as an example of the uniqueness of our lives, even if other planets had what we perceive as the building blocks of life.  The lack of ability to produce life from an entirely lifeless state would further be observed, after experimentation that shows life from lifelessness is virtually impossible to obtain, would be further evidence that some outside designer must have put the pieces together just exactly correctly for our needs and existence.

The fact that the universe has a specific beginning has enormous implications.  Virtually every scientist agrees with the concept of the "Big Bang", in which the current laws of our universe did not exist.  This implies, of course, that there is something beyond our universe - further evidence supporting the hypothesis that a designer outside of our universe could not only exist, but would exist beyond the laws of our universe as we know them today.

Like macro-evolution, we cannot confirm any of these findings with anything but more conjecture, and explaining the data we observe in terms of the hypothesis - nothing refutes the hypothesis yet, though, which lends it scientific credence.





> Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact.


Couldn't agree more





> Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong.  You can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.


Is that the one and only way to disprove it?  

You could easily prove ID wrong, then.   Simply create a universe from nothing, then populate it.





> Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)


Well, that parenthetic statement is quite strong.  Care to back it up?

Every observation I have ever heard, read, or made myself fits completely with the idea of a designer.  Nothing has fallen outside that realm.  Please provide the ID (not Creationism, ID) prediction which has "prove[n] to be false".





> Lack of proof isn't a weakness,


Again, couldn't agree more





> claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of a non-scientific approach. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.


So, the fact that ID cannot be proven is not a weakness for ID.  I agree 100% with this conclusion





> Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.


Yep, agree here, too.





> Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)
> 
> But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all


Well, the Bible never says the earth does NOT go around the sun.  That's misinterpretation of the verse.

However, the Bible isn't what's being compared to.  ID is what is being compared.

I do find it interesting, though, that the validity of other theories is used as a basis to believe in the theory of evolution.  Shouldn't evolution stand or fall on it's own merits, not the merits of other theories (this, Ooberboober, is why I don't answer questions about gravity when speaking of evolution vs ID).


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Matter for debate
> 
> That does not equate to some spiritual or religious soul.  Its a factor of being self-aware.
> 
> Same as with other self-aware animals who are capable of recognizing reactions to an action.
> 
> Good and Evil are fluid and malleable as the society that determine what is Good and Evil change and evolve.
> 
> These are facets of Society in combination of consciousness.
> 
> No, society and my conscience, working in conjunction, tell me that there results for actions.
> 
> Same as you follow, the rules and laws of the society you live in.
> 
> If you were born in one of the 'stans, you'd be a Muslim and follow the rules and laws of the society there.
> 
> If you lived in Africa 600 years ago, you'd pray to rocks and follow the rules and laws of the society there.



OK - so in your assessment, societies don't need to follow the Ten Commandments; It's OK for them to set the rules of how to interact with fellow humans?


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> fredcaudle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the faithers misunderstanding of a Scientific Theory before
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... you addressed it before and a very good explanation.  It does not change the fact that evolution cannot be a fact because it has not been replicated nor proven.  Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary under several definitions of theory would disagree with your assertion by the way that faith is not part of theory.
> 
> If you believe something that cannot be proven by sight... you live by faith.  Evolutionist don't like the word faith because then they would have to agree that both creation and evolution should be taught equally since both rely on faith to various degrees.  You dogmatically believe (therefore know) that evolution is based on "fact" - doesn't change other people's dogmatic beliefs nor does it elevate you to be of a greater mind than those who would disagree with you.  We each choose our belief structure... why would an evolutionist be "smarter" or "wiser"?  Why would a creationist be "smarter" or "wiser"?  As far as I can see (literally) we both came into the world from a mother's womb and we are both human and both progressively learned that which has been given us.
> 
> I don't believe myself to be smarter or wiser because I choose faith of creation.  I'm just happy and content in my faith.  What other people believe, I cannot change... just look at history for that proof.  Grave mistakes are made when humans elavate themselves because they believe something someone else doesn't.  The mistake is also called "arrogance".  I think (therefore mean believe by faith) that Job's record of God said it best:
> "Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?  Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Tell me if you have understanding..."  (Job 38)
> 
> One day we all will give an account... for me my account is that God spoke and it is so.  If someone disagrees or disputes... okay... why should that change my position?  Or more importantly, why would someone who disputes be arrogant enough to think they have more enlightenment?  Neither was there... and both persons (in the dispute) are less than 100 years of age.
Click to expand...


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> My assessment is societies have functioned, grew, floundered and disapeared whether they followed the 10 commandments or not.



Most likely because they never could really follow the basic laws of how mankind should interact in order to have the "peace" everyone calls for.


*For Those who believe in the God of The Old/New Testaments:*

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: *" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'* (Matthew 22:35-39)

*For All Atheists and believers of other deities:*

"Love your neighbor as yourself."


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> And this is where creationists lose the argument.  If the class being taught was a dogma class you'd have a point.
> 
> It is perfectly natural, acceptable and valid for a Science class to learn the Theories, Processes and Practices of the Scientific method.
> 
> Once creationists apply the same rules, methods, practices and falsibility to their story they then have a scientific theory and not faith.
> 
> Your applying the same tactics as This_Person, by misrepresenting my posts and my stances on the subject.
> 
> Although we notice thatyou only seem to apply these standards to those that dont believe the same as yourself, where did you post your diatribe about "smarter or wiser" to other Christians?
> 
> My entire discussion in the matter of Evolution has been to address the misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of what the Scientific process is, what evolution is, and how a Scientific Theory is not the same as a story read in a book.
> 
> This_Person created this thread, about the possiblity that Darwins theory was wrong, as some kind of proof that the "gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer".
> 
> His dishonesty doesnt recognize that the Scientific process does work, and while it may show Darwin was incorrect it does not refute Evolution.  1 minus 2 does not equal 3.
> 
> While Darwin may have been the first recognized with the theory (and its more an evolution of the Greek philosphy towards nature) his own theory has evolved past his own understanding and observences since he put pen to paper about it.
> 
> No you only seem to take an issue with it, when non-Christians refute the misrepresentation by creationists about Scientific theories
> 
> Arrogance is attributed to all, not just those that believe in the same bible as yourself
> 
> Your question would be better asked of This_Person, who posted a scientific article, about the Scientific method working correctly, in a Religion forum.
> 
> Not sure what the age of those in the discussion has to do with it, posting a non-religious article in the religion forum is incorrect no matter how old you are.


 
Once creationism becomes some how like evolution we can join in a classroom conversation?????  Hey, I can look out my window and see randomness is not possible and that something does not come from nothing....  but go on with reasoning if you will.
"You loose"... there is no win or loose here... you and I simply don't agree and neither I nor you can pronounce a winner.  Age... we haven't even lived a 100 years - what do we know in comparison to the ages?  
I said arrogance is applied to all - read again.  You are trying to argue and decide like a fight or football game who wins.  
Your knowledge does not superceede mine...  My knowledge will not superceede yours... You believe in evolution - let your faith (or theory) live out then as I will mine. 
I know you are not into the Bible... but we (who believe) use scientific methods in discerning its message.  It's called among other things Hermeneutics (probably misspelled because I'm in a hurry.)  Your presupposition is the Bible is false.  My presupposition is its Truth.  The same can be said of our dialogue with evolution verses creation.  You have a presupposition that evolution is correct... so nothing else can be right.  I am the same towards creation.


----------



## OoberBoober

Can we bar people with zero understanding of modern science from discussions related to science? Please?


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> Can we bar people with zero understanding of modern science from discussions related to science? Please?



Sure... then you would never have to think and debate, or God-forbid - someone disagree with you.


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> Sure... then you would never have to think and debate, or God-forbid - someone disagree with you.



Good thing you can understand science and still disagree with it. You have 1 out of 2 going for you.


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> Good thing you can understand science and still disagree with it. You have 1 out of 2 going for you.



Yes, it is called reasoning and looking into things.  So you would agree then to you that Science is God since you "understand and agree with it all the time"?  Science never being wrong... that's godlike quality there.

Do you understand science?


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> Yes, it is called reasoning and looking into things.  So you would agree then to you that Science is God since you "understand and agree with it all the time"?  Science never being wrong... that's godlike quality there.
> 
> Do you understand science?



Science is the journey for knowledge and understanding... Not truth, like your religion has indoctrinated you into thinking.


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> Yes, it is called reasoning and looking into things.  So you would agree then to you that Science is God since you "understand and agree with it all the time"?  Science never being wrong... that's godlike quality there.
> 
> Do you understand science?



To give you a better understanding of science, in your world.

God is a hypothesis.
Evolution is a theory.


----------



## This_person

OoberBoober said:


> God is a hypothesis.
> Evolution is a theory.


And, ID is a theory.


----------



## OoberBoober

This_person said:


> And, ID is a theory.



False. ID is a hypothesis but not a scientific one.


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> You obviosly dont.  Science, by its nature, follows the Scientific Principle.  The first tenent is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong.



Science can be proven wrong...  hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> Science is the journey for knowledge and understanding... Not truth, like your religion has indoctrinated you into thinking.



I thank God I was indoctrinated on the apostolic teaching as Christ is the cornerstone and not humanism and secularism like you were.  It is just a difference of choosing, that's all.  You are thankful, and I am thankful - isn't life great?


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> To give you a better understanding of science, in your world.
> 
> God is a hypothesis.
> Evolution is a theory.



To give you a better understanding in my world... God is Truth. Evolution exchanges the glory of God for a lie.  Remember, that's my "world" - not yours.


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> I thank God I was indoctrinated on the apostolic teaching as Christ is the cornerstone and not humanism and secularism like you were.  It is just a difference of choosing, that's all.  You are thankful, and I am thankful - isn't life great?



Actually I was raised as a Southern Baptist in a non-denominational church in South Carolina. I just grew up.


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> To give you a better understanding in my world... God is Truth. Evolution exchanges the glory of God for a lie.  Remember, that's my "world" - not yours.



FINALLY the classic Christian cop out. My work here is over. Please leave the thread now.



Phew, I've been working to get that response for a while.


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> Actually I was raised as a Southern Baptist in a non-denominational church in South Carolina. I just grew up.



How about grew out?  You don't "grow up"... you should keep learning - don't become a dead mind because you think you have all the answers.  When you "grow up" you will be passing on from this life.


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> FINALLY the classic Christian cop out. My work here is over. Please leave the thread now.
> 
> 
> 
> Phew, I've been working for that one for a while.



Cop out...good way to cop out of the conversation by imploring it.


----------



## OoberBoober

fredcaudle said:


> How about grew out?  You don't "grow up"... you should keep learning - *don't become a dead mind because you think you have all the answers*.  When you "grow up" you will be passing on from this life.



Sorry but I am safe admitting I don't have all the answers.

You are the one who has to rely on magic and a book to provide you with all the answers. You are the one with a dead mind because you have all the answers provided to you.

Mine became a Jesus mind (back from the dead, get it?) when I dropped that rediculousness, and realized there are no answers.


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> And that makes your approach to ID/Creationism NOT a Scientific Theory.



So?  It doesn't eliminate it either.


----------



## fredcaudle

OoberBoober said:


> Sorry but I am safe admitting I don't have all the answers.
> 
> You are the one who has to rely on magic and a book to provide you with all the answers. You are the one with a dead mind because you have all the answers provided to you.
> 
> Mine became a Jesus mind (back from the dead, get it?) when I dropped that rediculousness, and realized there are no answers.



Take a look at some of the tenants of evolution and then talk about magic.  Amen to all the answers provided by the book.  "No answers"... why do you ramble on and on about so many then?  If you have no answers, why do you care about a sight that discusses the possibility of many, many answers?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Or because a bunch of Christian cultists influenced their society and eventually led to its demise.



Actually the demise and subjugation of some societies was the result of a bunch of anti-God, "Christ-punching" Atheists kicking prayer and the concept of God out of their educational systems in exchange for alternate beliefs.

America is following suit.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> For example?



*Previous societies that turned anti-God:*

Days before the Great Flood & Soddom & Ghomorra.


*Modern anti-God ideologies:* Communist Russia; Marxism; Leninism; Communist China; North Korea; 



> Actually America is following the tenents of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  But why quibble



Not for very much longer - thanks to the direction this nation is being taken into. And remember that most civilizations have not lasted much past 200 years before they fall. We are at a turning point in history and it doesn't look like it's a turn to asking God to Bless America anymore.

Here's one suggestion for this country to remain Free:

*If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.* (2 Chronicles 7:14)


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> It does if you can not accept the possibility that the story you were told is false.



To you... but it does not exclude from humanity's reasoning and finding.  Unless of course you believe you are the center of humanity.  But even then, many will say - no, you're not... it is still out there to consider.


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> If you are not willing to accept that your premise can be false, you are not following the Scientific method.
> 
> Its really quite that simple.



Scientific method didn't make me... it is not a god and it doesn't speak, hear, or listen... so, again - it doesn't eliminate the possibility.  It's really quite that simple.  

Incidently, if my premise can be false - why have the fortitude to believe in something?  You believe something that up front you say is false (excuse me, can be false)... yet you get upset with creationist for believing it is false and can be false... interesting.


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> This_Person, you really need to figure out which one of your accounts your going to sign in with.  If your not This_Person, you misrepresent posts and statements just like him, are you two brothers?



I don't hide behind ficticious names... I'm posting... just trying to get your reasoning that must be considered false to be valid.  Only one account with me.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If you are not willing to accept that your premise can be false, you are not following the Scientific method.
> 
> Its really quite that simple.


So, I'm willing to believe ID could be wrong.

And, I'm willing to concede that it could be tested and proven wrong.

I'll devise the test for that when you devise the test that demonstrates macro-evolution.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> This_Person, you really need to figure out which one of your accounts your going to sign in with.  If your not This_Person, you misrepresent posts and statements just like him, are you two brothers?


He's not me.

And, once again, quoting you is not misrepresenting what you say.

When you say Lot would be in violation if he'd have slept with his daughter(s) when mom was alive, you say you know 18:6 and 18:17 say a man can't sleep with his daughters.  When you add in the "as long as mom's alive and sexually active with dad", you're just making stuff up.

Just because you don't like it pointed out doesn't mean it's misrepresenting you.  I just means you don't like it.


----------



## fredcaudle

This_person said:


> So, I'm willing to believe ID could be wrong.
> 
> And, I'm willing to concede that it could be tested and proven wrong.
> 
> I'll devise the test for that when you devise the test that demonstrates macro-evolution.



I'm good with the concessions except that I don't need to devise a test for macro-evolution.  I've traveled broad roads of of where we came from and have for myself resolved the question.


----------



## fredcaudle

fredcaudle said:


> I'm good with the concessions except that I don't need to devise a test for macro-evolution.  I've traveled broad roads of of where we came from and have for myself resolved the question.



Sorry, I thought that test was for me... looks like that is between This_person and Nucklesack... I think.  Sorry for confusing your issue.


----------



## fredcaudle

Nucklesack said:


> Because ID and Creationism is based on a Story, really not any different than Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... i'll give you that Darth Vader subplot does play like the Devil - fall from grace (the force), an agent for evil.
> 
> And just as with life, there is no ONE story that is any more valid than the others.  The Abrahamic beliefs all coincide (kinda) with each other, but then thats expected since 2 of them are built off the backs of one.  But the Big-3 creationist story is not valid for believers that follow other deities than your own.   And their creationist story, and deities are just as valid as your own, to them.
> 
> Let alone all the Gods, beliefs and theologies that were followed and worshipped in the past that no longer exist.
> 
> Look at it this way, of the multitiude of Gods there are to believe in, or choose to follow, i just follow one less than you.



Good enough for me Nucklesack.  I'm not responsible for changing people... I'll leave that to the extremist and crusaders.  I simply share what has been given to me - some people like, some people don't.  Enjoyed conversation.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You dont understand what macro-evolution is.
> 
> You mistakenly think its poof! a Fish turned into a Bird.


Talk about misrepresenting what people have said    _*YOU*_ are the king!!


No, that's not what I think.  Never said that, implied that, nor believed that.


I've given many links to the definition of macro-evolution, and my problem with it.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And every time you do, you are refuted with your own links.
> 
> Yet you continue to want the proof that a sponge turned into a dog.  Exactly like poof! a fish turns into a bird.


Provide the full link, and I'll show you how wrong you're misrepresentation of me is.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:
			
		

> You dont want to "Save" America, you want a Theocracy. How are you any different than the Muslims, you claim want the same thing?



Not quite. For one thing, just because we believe in God's existence, The Holy Bible and Salvation through Jesus does not mean that you or anyone would be forced to believe that Message. It's your free-will choice of what to believe. That means that Christ-punching Atheists are tolerated; prayed for - but tolerated. And, yes, the message of Jesus would continue to resonate in America and throughout the world - but again, it's up to each individual to accept it or not.

On the other hand, the difference is that in a Muslim-led theocracy, you would be given a choice alright; *convert or be beheaded*. That means no sarcastic jokes or cartoons about the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. And if you are forced to confess faith in Al'lah and Muhammad in order to save your skin, there is no tolerance for changing your mind and becoming an apostate.


BTW: Take a real close look at how America and other countries are shaping up right now and caving in to the Islamic demands. I'd say you have more to worry about with the rising Islamic ideology than from true followers who place faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. In that instance, we are both in the same boat since Fundamental Islam wants to do away with Jews, Christians and Atheists.


----------



## Marie

This_person said:


> *Was Darwin Wrong?​
> *
> Which one Charles, or his grandfather?
> The answer is yes to all the above, a couple times over but hey its ok, because the theory keeps Evolving


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I mean it was you that posted :
> 
> 
> That was you dissmissing the changes between the sponge and puppy?


It's good that you asked that as a question, not made it as a statement.

No, I wasn't dismissing the theory of the gazzillion things in between.  I was stating that there's never been a test that's demonstrated - even with a gazzillion things in between - that this could happen.

See, that's why it says "less sarcastically" in front of it, to point out that what follows is the serious, non-sarcastic point.  That, even with a gazzillion minor changes, nothing's ever demonstrated that ability.





> Macro-evolution is a bunch of micro-evolutionary changes until the child species has evolved so much that it is classified as its own species.  Hence micro-evolution on steroids.  Macro-evolution does not stand on its own, its the series of micro-evolutions (hence the scale) wrapped into a package.


Which has never even been close to demonstrating that a single cell, even with the gazzillion micro changes, can become anything significantly more complex at the resultant species.  A sponge, even with a gazzillion changes, has never been tested and peer reviewed, nor observed empiracally, to become a fish, then a crab, then a dog.

No, I don't think a fish gives birth to a dog, or "poof"s into a dog.  I'm talking about the empirical evidence (even, though a repeatable test would be the real scientific test)[/quote]You are treating them as 2 seperate.... entities and this just your lack of understanding.[/quote]No, micro evolution has been established.  That micro can lead to macro is a conjecture.  Untested, unproven.  Conjecture.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Because ID and Creationism is based on a Story,


ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

Creationism is based on a specific religious belief.

ID is simply the concept that there is an intelligent designer.  It does not specify which religion, which God (or gods), which "story", etc.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Still waiting for you to post the verses that state a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters.


Leviticus 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.  I am the LORD.'

Now, we can argue what a "close relation" is, but that would just be your interpretation against mine (well, yours against about 98% of the population's).

You can interpret that this verse needs the others after it to explain it, but that's just a conjecture on your part.

You can interpret that, since some verses give specific punishments for violating them, this verse needs a specific punishement to be valid.  That is your interpretation, and you're welcome to it.

You can interpret that someone who was specifically noted as not knowing they were violating this verse was held in high regard by God, so therefore the Bible is, in your perspective, hypocritical.  That's your interpretation, and you are welcome to it.

Or, you can read the verse as a command, by God, given to the Isrealites via Moses, through the Isrealites' eyes.  If you can show me somewhere that would explain why the Isrealites would not see a daughter as a close relation, then your multiple counter-intuitive interpretations may have some validity.  Until you can show that the Isrealites saw daughters as something other than a close relation, you're just making....., well, you just have a special and unique interpretation from most everyone else who's read the verses.


----------



## Starman3000m

Marie said:


> This_person said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Was Darwin Wrong?​
> *
> Which one Charles, or his grandfather?
> The answer is yes to all the above, a couple times over but hey its ok, because the theory keeps Evolving
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> you continue to avoid this question, so I will post it seperately:
> in the case of incest the bible uses clear and explicit language for what it considers incest.  in the case of dictating the prohibitions, he uses clear and explicit language on what it considers close relations.
> 
> since the precedent of being clear and precise on what is consideed a close relation, why is it we are still waiting for you to post the verses that state a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters?
> 
> Here is your chance to ensure there will be no misrepresentation
> 
> Do not post This_Persons interpretated verses
> Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
> Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely that a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters.
> There are plenty of Verses that use clear, explicit language about who a man can not sleep with, it should be easy to find one that states in the same manner the prohibition about sex with his own daughter
> 
> While your posting the hidden verse that only you know about, can you also post the Lev 20: punishment that fits the crime?
> 
> Do not post This_Persons misinterpreted verses
> Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
> Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely the punishment for a Man that has sexual relations with his own daughters.
> I have posted the verses without edits and without interpretation, surely you can find verses that state:
> 
> 'Do not dishonor your mother by having sexual relations with your father. He is your father; do not have relations with him
> "'Do not have sexual relations with your mothers husbaand; that would
> dishonor your mother
> 
> here is the point you continue to miss, the verses are very clear on what it considers prohibited, for the above example switch the gender and they are specifically, explicitly and expressely used in Lev 18:, no need for This_Persons interepretation, and no need for an alternative... err potential Bible to fill in the gaps.
> 
> The verses clearly and precisly tell men not to have sex with
> 
> their own mother
> their own sister
> their daughter-in-laws
> their Father/Mothers Sister
> their brothers wives
> But nowhere does it says not to have sex with their own Daughter.   You can interepret a verse to make it fit, but refuse to admit it is not clearly and explicitly prohibited in the same manner that all other variations are.



Leviticus 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.  I am the LORD.'

Now, we can argue what a "close relation" is, but that would just be your interpretation against mine (well, yours against about 98% of the population's).

You can interpret that this verse needs the others after it to explain it, but that's just a conjecture on your part.

You can interpret that, since some verses give specific punishments for violating them, this verse needs a specific punishement to be valid.  That is your interpretation, and you're welcome to it.

You can interpret that someone who was specifically noted as not knowing they were violating this verse was held in high regard by God, so therefore the Bible is, in your perspective, hypocritical.  That's your interpretation, and you are welcome to it.

Or, you can read the verse as a command, by God, given to the Isrealites via Moses, through the Isrealites' eyes.  If you can show me somewhere that would explain why the Isrealites would not see a daughter as a close relation, then your multiple counter-intuitive interpretations may have some validity.  Until you can show that the Isrealites saw daughters as something other than a close relation, you're just making....., well, you just have a special and unique interpretation from most everyone else who's read the verses.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> I didn't ask for your interpretations based on the morals and standards of the society you live in today.   it was a very clear question.
> 
> or you can admit that the verses do not exist, even though other variations do.
> 
> this is your chance to be honest





Maybe this will help. 

Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I didn't ask for your interpretations based on the morals and standards of the society you live in today.   it was a very clear question.
> 
> or you can admit that the verses do not exist, even though other variations do.
> 
> this is your chance to be honest


I didn't provide any interpretations.

I posted a verse, then disputed your repeated interpretations.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't  

If you believe I'm talking about today's standards, then please provide your demonstration that the Isrealites to whom God was speaking, via Moses, believed that daughters were not their fathers' close relation.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You posted verses that that you interpret to mean a father is not to have sexual relations with their daughters.
> 
> You have failed to produce verses that expressly deny it, the same way all the other verses clearly prohibit other variations of incest.


I posted a verse that says no one may have sexual relations with a close relative.

Again, provide me context in which the Isrealites would have not seen a father/daughter relation as "close relations".


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You posted a verse that stated Incest was wrong, thats it.  You did not post a verse that defined Father Daughter sex, in the same manner that all other variations of Incest were defined.


I posted a verse that says you may not have sexual relations with a "close relative".  It does not say it's incest, does not say "for example..." before listing other verses, does not say "and, I mean a close relation to be...." before the next set of verses.

It says "no sexual contact with close relations".  

Provide a reference that would mean the Isrealites, at the time, would not have considered a father and daughter as close relations.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Your talking about society, once again.  The Israelites *may* have thought Father Daughter sex was incest.  Just as the Israelites *may* have thought Mother Son was incest.  Are you claiming the Israelites believed Father and Daughters were close relation (and thereby banned) but didnt know that Sons and Mothers were not? Because the verses CLEARLY prohibit one of those acts, they do not prohibit the other.


18:6 prohibits _*BOTH*_, and more.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Just so you dont misrepresent my posts again note the *may*


I note the *may*, and I didn't misrepresent your posts.  I quoted them.  You've yet to provide how a quote is a misrepresentation.





> The verses are not edicts from society. As your ally has already shown, society did not hold Father Daughter incest as bad as other variations.  As your ally has already shown, Society held it being a worse offense for a man to sleep with his Daughter-in-law than it was to sleep with his own daughter.  Society, being masochisitic, did not value a daughter, it valued the offense against another man as worse.


There is no evidence to the effect.  However, I agree that it is not an edict from society, it is a a commandment from God, via Moses.

To the Isrealites.

Who, for all we can discern, believed fathers and daughters to be close relations.

Making father daughter sex in violation of 18:6, as you agreed a long time ago.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> The Lev verses are supposed edicts from God, spoken by Moses as he was told/understood.  There wouldnt be a reason for God to have the edict, if society wasnt clear on what represented incest.  In other words there wouldnt need to be a law, if no offense had occurred




Are you really sure about that?  Do you think mankind was perfectly fine with murder, lying, coveting, dishonoring parents, etc., before God prescribed these things to be "bad"?  

You know that makes no sense, right?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> The Bible, speaking from Moses, felt it was necessary to define what incest was prohibited in the Bible.  What God felt was "Wicked".   Its obvious that Moses/Biblical verses/God did not feel Father Daughter incest was wicked since it didnt define the act.


Ah, but it didn't say "incest is wicked".  It says "don't have sexual relations with close relations".

Again, if you can provide that the people being spoken to would not have considered fathers and daughter "close relations", you might have something.

Since you can't, you don't.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> If you read 18:17 it does not recognize the Fathers relation to any daughter, the concern of 18:17 is for the Mother and Her daughter.  The verses are not stipulating that a Man can not have sex with his own daughter, else it would have spelled it out as it spelled out other variations of a mans relation to the kin.  It is stating a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter.  Basically a man can have sex with a woman and other women, which was a valid practice of society at that time,  as long as the other women wasnt her daughters or her sister (as listed in earlier 18:xx verse).


Well, while it may have perfectly allowed a man with more than one woman, the verse just won't work with a man and his daughter being okay, because a woman's daughter with a man is also his daughter.  A man's daughter with a woman is also her daughter.  There's just no way to make that fit without dad/daughter being prohibited.  None at all.

But, if we're going to compare other verses to explain 18:6, please explain how a man's daughter's daughter would be considered a close relation to him per 18:10, but not his own daughter.  Even YOU have to see that would make no sense.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You are shoehorning 18:6 to fit, even though that is not the defining verses (the later are) and 18:17 to fit.  You are making them fit based on your interpretations.  That is clearly not the intention of 18:17, since it is only stipulating that a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter.  No where does it recognize the mans relation to the daughter, else it would recognize his relation to the daughter, as it recognizes his relation to kin in other variations.


Well, 18:6 is not being shoe-horned.  It's stand alone.

Your belief that it is not a stand alone, definitive verse is your INTERPRETATION, and it doesn't pass a common sense test.  You can't show how the people being spoken to would not have considered a man's daughter to be his close relation, you can't show how a man could have sex with a woman, creating a daughter with him, and them be able to have sex with that daughter without violating 18:17.

You want it spelled out in certain words.  I'm not sure why this is so important to you, that you want to have the Bible not prohibit father daughter sex. But, it does, clearly and specifically.  In both 18:6 and 18:17.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You keep claiming the verses are clearly there... heres your chance:
> in the case of incest the bible uses clear and explicit language for what it considers incest.  in the case of Moses dictating the prohibitions, he uses clear and explicit language on what it considers close relations.
> 
> since the precedent of being clear and precise on what is consideed a close relation, why is it we are still waiting for you to post the verses that state a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters?
> 
> Here is your chance to ensure there will be no misrepresentation
> 
> Do not post This_Persons interpretated verses
> Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
> Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely that a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters.
> There are plenty of Verses that use clear, explicit language about who a man can not sleep with, it should be easy to find one that states in the same manner the prohibition about sex with his own daughter
> 
> While your posting the hidden verse that only you know about, can you also post the Lev 20: punishment that fits the crime?
> 
> Do not post This_Persons misinterpreted verses
> Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
> Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely the punishment for a Man that has sexual relations with his own daughters.
> I have posted the verses without edits and without interpretation, surely you can find verses that state:
> 
> 'Do not dishonor your mother by having sexual relations with your father. He is your father; do not have relations with him
> "'Do not have sexual relations with your mothers husbaand; that would
> dishonor your mother
> 
> here is the point you continue to miss, the verses are very clear on what it considers prohibited, for the above example switch the gender and they are specifically, explicitly and expressely used in Lev 18:, no need for This_Persons interepretation, and no need for an alternative... err potential Bible to fill in the gaps.
> 
> The verses clearly and precisly tell men not to have sex with
> 
> their own mother
> their own sister
> their daughter-in-laws
> their Father/Mothers Sister
> their brothers wives
> But nowhere does it says not to have sex with their own Daughter.   You can interepret a verse to make it fit, but refuse to admit it is not clearly and explicitly prohibited in the same manner that all other variations are.



Leviticus 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.  I am the LORD.'

Now, we can argue what a "close relation" is, but that would just be your interpretation against mine (well, yours against about 98% of the population's).

You can interpret that this verse needs the others after it to explain it, but that's just a conjecture on your part.

You can interpret that, since some verses give specific punishments for violating them, this verse needs a specific punishement to be valid.  That is your interpretation, and you're welcome to it.

You can interpret that someone who was specifically noted as not knowing they were violating this verse was held in high regard by God, so therefore the Bible is, in your perspective, hypocritical.  That's your interpretation, and you are welcome to it.

Or, you can read the verse as a command, by God, given to the Isrealites via Moses, through the Isrealites' eyes.  If you can show me somewhere that would explain why the Isrealites would not see a daughter as a close relation, then your multiple counter-intuitive interpretations may have some validity.  Until you can show that the Isrealites saw daughters as something other than a close relation, you're just making....., well, you just have a special and unique interpretation from most everyone else who's read the verses.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Still didnt find it eh?



Technicalities & Common Sense

Leviticus 18:6 *None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.*


C'mon Nucklesack! Some laws are made to be interpreted and understood by using common sense. It makes common sense that a "daughter" would be considered the most "near of kin" to the father.

The list of kinfolk in the subsequent verses specify the remaining family tree which would also be considered "near of kin" otherwise one could say that they would be game because they are a "bit farther away" so as to put "near of kin" into question.

*BTW:* Did you get a chance to send your question to the Rabbi yet? I'm sure many in the synagogues would find your assertion quite amusing.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> As to Lot, to be clear, i do not feel somoene throwing their daughters to be gang raped, to save strangers (which is all Lot thought they were) is a Just and Rightous person.



The "strangers" were angelic beings, perfect in their nature who came to warn Lot about the impending destruction that God was going to send upon the land. Believing that he was able to protect the angelic beings from being defiled by human perverts, Lot offered up his daughters instead so that no harm would come against the direct Messengers of God.

Gen:19:1: *And there came two angels to Sodom* at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Little did Lot know that the angels could have taken care of themselves and really didn't need his help in keeping the desperate pervs at bay.


----------



## Starman3000m

*BTW:* Genesis 19:31-38 explains that the encounter Lot had with his daughters was not by his consent, intent, nor even of his knowledge of what was happening.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> My problem is with his label of Just and Rightousness (in regards to Lot) in the OT, and the continuation of it in the NT.



Hmmm... If Leviticus 18:6 was not followed by all the others in the family tree, I guess that's the one that would be considered in a court of law that would determine what constitutes " close of kin" and you wouldn't have given it anymore thought. "Daughter" would certainly meet the applicable criteria.

*However:* I don't think God would deem Lot "unjust and unrighteous" for his involuntary involvement with his daughters. This would be laying blame on him for what happened. Had the acts been intentionally committed without any doubt, then I would agree that Lot's character would come under question. However, that wasn't the case and his character of being a just and righteous individual would not be tainted over something he had no control over.

*Now *- if you really want to make a case and comparison: In Islam, if a law abiding, honest and decent virgin girl gets forcibly raped by one or more men, she is considered guilty of perpetrating the crime and has no exhoneration or way to prove her innocence that she did not consent to the rape. Would it be right to label her as being dishonorable, promiscuous and lewd from that point on because of what happened to her?

Same applies to any innocent party that has been unknowingly involved in a crime through the premeditated intent and actions of others to involve that person. Should that person be labeled an actual criminal when they were duped into doing something illegal?

I know you are a common sense guy and would make the right and honorable decision in whether the victim's reputation, honor and integrity should be legally destroyed or legally upheld on such matters. That's why I believe that, given the circumstances in Lot's case, you would be able to comprehend that Lot's personal integrity would continue to be upheld the same as if that specific situation happened in the case of anyone else whether religious or Atheist.


----------



## foodcritic

Starman3000m said:


> I know you are a common sense guy  and would make the right and honorable  decision in whether the victim's reputation, honor and integrity should be legally destroyed or legally upheld on such matters. That's why I believe that, given the circumstances in Lot's case, you would be able to comprehend that Lot's personal integrity would continue to be upheld the same as if that specific situation happened in the case of anyone else whether religious or Atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can give him the benefit of the doubt.  But....
> 
> Another reason why this argument is so non-sensical is that a father would want only the purest daughter to offer as a bride since he would have received a dowry for her.  If she was tainted goods he would get less.
> 
> This of course is in addition to the Relative/kin arguments that knunkle can't/won't admit clearly exist.
> 
> I am starting to think that his motives are selfish in that he has some sick fantasies he would like to act on and then abort the evidence.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Still didnt find it eh?


Didn't find what?  I thought you were looking for the verse that stated:
A daughter is not a "close relation" with her father
A daughter is only a close relation with the father when the mother is still alive
A daughter is only a close relation if the mother and father are still sexually active
A daughter is NOT a close relation to a man, even though HER daughter IS a close relation to the same man, per 18:10
A man can have sexual relations with a woman, create a daughter, and then NOT have actually had sexual relations with that first woman, making 18:17 a physical possibility
Now, I don't know where you're going to find these verses to back up your previous statements.

But, I did find a verse (Lev 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.') that says a man can't have sexual relations with a "close relation".  And, everything else in the context of that verse sure shows a daughter _would_ be considered a close relation, so I'm just waiting on your verses explaining how she's not.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> That is not your contention, your contention is the Israelites knew the Fathers and Daughters were covered under Lev 18:6 so it didnt need to spell out that it was prohibited.


Nope. It's my contention that daughters are close relations with fathers, and none of the rest of Leviticus 18 with regards to examples of what close relations are have any bearing on that fact.





> Yet the Israelites didnt know Mother and Sons were close relations?  And because they didnt know they had to have it spelled out?


Never suggested (you putting words in my mouth that were never there is nothing new...) that at all.

I fully believe they understood mothers and sons to be close relations.  I actually have used the phrase in here, long before this post, that the rest of the examples given were entirely unnecessary, just examples.





> Are you sure you want to stick with that?


Yep.  Truth and understanding are great things to stick with.

You sure you want to stick with whatever it is you're using, 'cuz it sure ain't those two things.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> You quoted them selectively, this is misrepresntation.  You posted a snipped of my statement and didnt post the parts that explained the stance.


No, I quoted the whole post, and linked to it.

Here, let me do the whole post again 

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as *Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter*.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX
> 
> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome i stated *a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.*


As you can see, that's your _*whole*_ post, not snipped at all.

Does it fit with other posts, in context?  Well, let's look 

Nucklesack said:


> *In the case of Lot its covered since she was dead.* *In others the Father can not have sex with BOTH the mother and daughter*. seems pretty clear not sure why you struggle.
> 
> It does when YOU ask about todays versus Biblical times.
> 
> Unlesss you were purposly posing an idiotic question
> 
> Try to keep it straight.  18:6 just tells you incest is wicked, 18:?? then defines incest
> 
> *As defined by your bible Fathers and Daughter love is ok if mom isnt getting any.*


So, yes, it is your REPEATED assertion that there is some clause, somewhere, in the Bible that says mom and dad have to remain sexually active, or, mom has to still be alive for 18:17 to be applicable.  Since other verses specifically STATE the wife needs to be alive for the verse to be applicable, I'm wondering where it is you see that for THIS verse.  No one else can see it, but clearly you can.

I'm also looking for the verse that shows you that mom and dad need to remain sexually active for him to have ever been with her.  What is your biblical reference for this timeframe of how often they need to be together for a daughter to continue to be a close relation.

I mean, you're very clear that Lot would have been "in violation" if he were still active with his wife, so I'm looking for where the verse is that shows the "if he is still active with his wife" part.  I mean, you're not just INTERPRETTING (poorly, mind you) that part, are you?

Then, you go on to talk about the worth of women,  and your interpretations of that.  Of course, you haven't mentioned that again since I've shown you a man's daughter's daughter is his close relation per 18:10.  Because, even your twisted views can't come up with an excuse for how the daughter's daughter is his close relation, but the daughter isn't and reconcile that with the invalidated "worth of women" argument.  


> Actually there is, the Code of Hammurabi holds a worse punishment for a man who sleeps with his sons wife (Daughter-in-law) than it does for if he sleeps with his own daughter.  One of them lets you keep your head.


I'm not versed on the Code of Hammurabi.  Is this like the Ninja code, or something?    How does it relate to the Bible?





> But didnt know Sons and Mothers were close relations and needed to have it spelled out
> 
> :gotcha:


Nope, no need at all.  Repeatedly said.





> Yet another misrepresentation by This_Person.   I stated if Lot was having sex with BOTH Mrs. Lot and his daughters he would be in violation.  Since he wasnt having sex with Both (as you admitted) he wasnt.


Again, please provide the "as long as they're still sexually active", including what would constitute "still" (what time frame) from the bible.  Otherwise, you're just making stuff up - still and again.

"'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter" is the phrase.  You seem to have interpretted that to include "within a certain timeframe", but that phrase, nor nothing like it, is there anywhere.  It's a full time thing.  Not same day, same week, same month, same year, same decade, ...... same lifetime.  YOUR lifetime.  You can't have sex with both a woman and her daughter.  If you've had sex with one, you may never have sex with the other.  There's no implication of an "unless you stopped having sex with one, then you can have sex with the other", or, "well, you know, if one's dead, then this prohibition is no longer valid" or anything like that.

That's your MISinterpretation.


----------



## Starman3000m

foodcritic said:


> Starman3000m said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can give him the benefit of the doubt.  But....
> 
> Another reason why this argument is so non-sensical is that a father would want only the purest daughter to offer as a bride since he would have received a dowry for her.  If she was tainted goods he would get less.
> 
> This of course is in addition to the Relative/kin arguments that knunkle can't/won't admit clearly exist.
> 
> I am starting to think that his motives are selfish in that he has some sick fantasies he would like to act on and then abort the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I do give Knucklesack the benefit of the doubt in that I doubt he's applying his common sense when it comes to defining what "close of kin" means. To everyone else, it is obviously common sense to determine that a "daughter" would be covered by that definition in any court of law. You are correct in stating that Leviticus 18:6 is a stand-alone command and sometimes one needs to apply the spirit of the law along with the letter of the law.
> 
> Knucklesack is really an OK guy in my opinion and he is just living up to his name as a "Christ-punching Atheist". That's why I do pray for him while he continues his skeptic views and mocking of our Lord and Saviour Jesus and I say "Father, forgive Knucklesack, for he knows not what he is doing."
> 
> I was once doubtful of Jesus' position and Authority before I became born-again and had (still have) many friends like Knucklesack. I pray for them as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Still waiting for you to post the verses as asked.



Funny, so am I waiting for the same thing from you.

The difference is, I've posted verses, you've posted interpretations.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Interesting twist to the debate, I have held that God would lay some responsibility onto Lot for the sex with his Daughters.  Maybe not all the blame, but he had some involvement in it (*the getting Drunk and not being aware he had sex with 2 daughters over 2 different nights, never seemed realistic*).


So, now you're arguing the Bible with the Bible?  

You don't just interpret the verses, you deny them even when they're point blank clear?  

You're something.....





> But we are not talking about society and its values and standards of today.  We are discussing the Lev 18:xx verses, based on when they were written and based on the standards and values of society back then.


Then, you have a biblical reference to the Isrealites Moses was speaking to, for God, that shows those Isrealites somehow did not see a daughter as a "close relation", but _*would*_ see HER daughter as a man's close relation?

Or, are you just making baseless counterintuitive interpretations again?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Really????
> 
> You have? where did you post these verses?


Lev 18:6, and 18:17.


Now, where are your verses that show the "still sexually active" or "still alive", or "daughters would not be considered close relations, even though their daughters would be considered close relations" verses?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> I dont consider Lot "unjust and unrighteous" solely because of the incident in the mountains of Zoar.
> 
> I question his Just and Rightousness becaus of his willingness to allow his virginal daughters to be raped by the mob, for the safety of strangers, AND the for the events in Zoar.
> 
> Talk about out of left field, what does your Bible state about a Woman who is raped and didnt cry out?
> 
> And what do you think about a Father who desires to toss his virginal daughters to an angry mob to be gang raped, so that 2 strangers wouldnt face the same fate?
> 
> Interesting twist to the debate, I have held that God would lay some responsibility onto Lot for the sex with his Daughters.  Maybe not all the blame, but he had some involvement in it (the getting Drunk and not being aware he had sex with 2 daughters over 2 different nights, never seemed realistic).
> 
> But we are not talking about society and its values and standards of today.  We are discussing the Lev 18:xx verses, based on when they were written and based on the standards and values of society back then.



Yo Knucklesack - It's obvious you are never going to let up with your skepticism and arguments of contention with the Bible verses that you find problematic. You could do the same under most legal language of the penal code - that's why we have so many lawyers trying to make sense of what someone else wrote when the language is not "specific".

The truth is - you will never really be satisfied because you think you have technically "gotten something over" on the legal interpretations of what anyone else would be able to figure out by using some common sense in the matter.

When it comes to interpreting Jewish Laws, I'd continue to direct your specific arguments to the proper Jewish authorities since you don't accept our explanations here. Afterall, you are contending with Old Testament Mosaic Laws which were expanded by the Jewish sages and Sanhedrin - many of which Jesus declared null and void.


Jewish source for your questions on Mosaic Laws:
Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> No i am disputing your claim that the Israelites knew that Fathers having Sex with their daughters was covered in Lev 18:6.


What social reference are you using to show that fathers and daughters would not have been considered "close relations" by the Isrealites, per 18:6?





> But those same Israelits didnt know and had to have it clearly spelled out that Men are not to have sex with:
> 
> their own mother
> their own sister
> their daughter-in-laws
> their Father/Mothers Sister
> their brothers wives


They didn't "have to have it clearly spelled out".  Those verses were not necessary as addendums.  They're just there.

Unless, of course, you've figured out a way for men to have their daughter's daughter a "close relation", but not the daughter herself.

Or, you've figured out a way, per 18:17, to have had sex with a woman and created a daughter with that woman, but then to somehow define it as NOT having had sex with that same woman so you can sleep with your/her daughter.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> So post the verses that, using the same language, state a Man is not to have sex with his own daughter.
> 
> There are verses that clearly and explicitly tell a Man not to have sex with:
> 
> their own mother
> their own sister
> their daughter-in-laws
> their Father/Mothers Sister
> their brothers wives
> No interpretation is needed for that, and no possible mistake could be made by reading the verses.
> 
> Do not use interpretation, do not use This_Persons alternative ..... err potential versions, post the actual verses that state a man is not to have sex with his own daughter.


Lev 18:6.  No interpretation needed, no possible mistake.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> More dishonesty on your part?  I'll be nice and give you an easy one, here are the Lev 18: verses:
> 
> 
> 
> where does it recognize HER daughter (speaking about granddaughters) as being a mans close relation?


Well, I guess that depends on how you're interpretting.

If you're suggesting that the followup verses were needed to show what a "close relation" is (not my argument, but your argument), then the followup verses were showing what close relations were.  Since 18:10 shows the daughter's daughter as prohibited becuase having sex with her would dishonor the man, clearly it's HIS close relation that she must be to fit your argument that those verses define what a close relation is.

If you recognize that the followup verses were not necessary, 18:6 gives you all you need to know.


----------



## This_person

Now, where are your verses that show the "still sexually active" or "still alive", or "daughters would not be considered close relations, even though their daughters would be considered close relations" verses?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Unfortunately for your argument, the verses that follow 18:6 are the definitions of incest.
> 
> And as your failure to produce the verses has shown, the Bible lists every definition of incest except for Father Daughter sex.


So, you agree then that a daughter's daughter IS a close relation (since the word "incest" isn't in 18:6, but "close relation" is) per 18:10?

But, that the Isrealites would have bought that, and not that the daughter was a close relation?

Source of this intentionally counterintuitive misinterpretation?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Well look there is more dishonesty from This_Person, there are no verses that recognize the Fathers close relation to his own daughter.  And heck there arent any verses that state a Father is not to have sexual relations to his own daughter.


You know, I don't think there's any verse that specifically defines what a father is, or a daughter, either.

It's just clearly understood what is meant by these words.

So, it's on you to show where a father would NOT be a close relation with the daughter, with regards to the understanding of the Isrealites at the time, or of God in general, or of Moses in particular.





> Now there is a verse that tells a Man he is not to have sexual realations with BOTH a Mother and Her Daughter.  Since Lot wasnt doing this, as you have admitted numerous times, he wouldnt have violated that definition.


Please provide where it shows that there is a time limit on when that verse is no longer valid ("Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter" unless it's been at least three weeks since you've been with one, then it's okay to be with the other -- something like that).


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Unfortunately for your argument, the verses that follow 18:6 are the definitions of incest.
> 
> And as your failure to produce the verses has shown, the Bible lists every definition of incest except for Father Daughter sex.



Nucklesack:

You are hereby summoned to appear (in writing) before the Rabbinical assembly for the purpose of presenting and registering your complaints that Leviticus 18:6 is too vague for you to comprehend. Any ruling in definition shall be deemed absolute and final as determined by Jewish council and as pursuant to Levitical law. Please report to the following site on or following the first day of the week:
Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions

P.S. Have a good weekend my friend and Shabbat Shalom.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> We'll see if we get a reply
> 
> Link


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> [Lev 18:17] is stating a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter


And, if _her_ daughter is also _his_ daughter.......  (see if you can fill in the rest of that sentence)




You forgot to mention your theory that it's okay for him to have sex with his daughter if he just stops having sex with the daughter's mother.  

And, did you come up with the Biblical verse for the timeframe that "still sexually active" is?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Link


Whilst it is true that the Written Torah does not state that sexual relations between a father and a daughter are forbidden the Oral Law points out that that is *because it so obvious*. The Sages explain, Midrash HaGadol Leviticus chapter 18 verse 10, that God states clearly, ibid., that incest with a granddaughter is forbidden and there is a clear legal, *logical progression that leaves room for absolutely no doubt that a relationship involving a closer family relative is unquestionably forbidden.* The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin page 76, states that in the times when Biblical Law was applicable *the punishment was to put the father death for such actions*. 




Interesting, very interesting.  I wonder where you'd heard all this and more before....


----------



## Starman3000m

This_person said:


> Whilst it is true that the Written Torah does not state that sexual relations between a father and a daughter are forbidden the Oral Law points out that that is *because it so obvious*. The Sages explain, Midrash HaGadol Leviticus chapter 18 verse 10, that God states clearly, ibid., that incest with a granddaughter is forbidden and there is a clear legal, *logical progression that leaves room for absolutely no doubt that a relationship involving a closer family relative is unquestionably forbidden.* The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin page 76, states that in the times when Biblical Law was applicable *the punishment was to put the father death for such actions*.
> 
> 
> Interesting, very interesting.  I wonder where you'd heard all this and more before....



*It's Official* - *Common sense prevails!* 
Kudos to the Rabbi for taking time to respond to Nucklesack's question regarding Leviticus 18:6 in a timely manner.

Now, for the answer to the original question of this thread:
*Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.*


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Not so fast, take the time to read what he posted, he actually makes my case for me.



Have you replied to the Rabbi and given him your assesment of his response to your question.



> Darwin being wrong has nothing to do with the validity of Evolution.



We agree - Darwin was wrong. The only validity of Evolution is that it is *valid as a theory* and remains and always will remain an *unproven thought of science*.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> not yet, i will get to it and post the question/answers
> 
> 
> That is not what a theory is, this would be the thread to discuss it, but This_Perons tendency to misrepresnt has caused this thread to seriously jump the shark.



OK - will be interested to read what the Rabbi has to say.


----------



## ve2dict

just wondering why typically religious people are quick to say all these scientific explanations are full of holes....but never mention all the massive holes in religion


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Who will notice that he :
> 
> Does not rely upon Lev 18:6 as the definitive, like This_Person, FoodCritic and others have attempted.  Again, because it is so obvious.
> This is because Lev 18:6 is not the definition of incest, it is merely the edict against it.  Actually, it defines it.  You will not find the word "incest" in it, you find an edict against sexual contact with "close relations".  He goes on to describe how 18:10 defines the daughter's daughter as a close relation, so it would be obvious to everyone except you that it would include the daughter herself
> 
> States the Torah (and Christian Old Testament) do not prohibit Father Daughter sex.
> States that instances not covered under the Torah (and Christian Old Testament) were covered by the standards and values of the Society at the time.
> And since it is based on the standards and values of Societ, if society did not prohibit it, it was not prohibited per the Torah and Christian Old Testament


If he were not speaking through Moses to the Isrealites, who did understand that a daughter was a close relation, you might have an argument.  It's like saying "well, if they didn't know what sexual relations were, sexual relations are not defined, so it could mean anything".  Well, yeah, and up could be down, but it's not, so what's the point in discussing it?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> This fails for the same reasons that failed This_Person interpretations, the implication being that 18:10 mentions a grandaughter as being forbidden automatically means that the daughter is too.
> This fails the logic test since Men are told, explicitly, not to have sex with their:
> 
> their own mother
> their own sister
> their daughter-in-laws
> their Father/Mothers Sister
> their brothers wives


They're also explicitly told not to have sex with "close relations".


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> not yet, i will get to it and post the question/answers


Make sure you bring up your "as long as mom and dad are still sexu8ally active" theory.  I'm sure it'll give him a hoot.





> That is not what a theory is, this would be the thread to discuss it, but This_Perons tendency to misrepresnt has caused this thread to seriously jump the shark.


Please, provide me where I've misrepresented.


----------



## Starman3000m

ve2dict said:


> just wondering why typically religious people are quick to say all these scientific explanations are full of holes....but never mention all the massive holes in religion



*There Is Only One Truth:*

1.) This world and all existence of life is the handiwork of the Supreme Creator God of The Holy Bible as explained in the Book of Genesis. Mankind is more than just a physical being but also encompasses both spirit and soul which is transcended through a spiritual relationship with the Divine Creator.

2.) All biological lifeforms resulted from a single-cell and evolved through various stages of mutations and adaptations into the present day human, insect and animal kingdom as explained by secular science.
The geological makeup of the entire universe is the result of a massive explosion of matter that formed the planets, galaxies and solar system and placed them in an orderly manner so as to make life upon this earth possible.
There is no such thing as a person having a spirit and soul, thus, a spiritual realm does not exist.

BTW: *All religions Do Not lead to God;* *There Is Only One Truth*. Therefore, your observation is correct to say that there are "holes" in religious ideologies.

*However, *if the theory of evolution is correct as proclaimed by secular science, then Atheists should care less about the "religious" people and not let this bother you as much as it does. You will find out at the end whether you were right or not. If there is a Judgment day as Jesus proclaimed, don't ever say you were never told of His Message.


----------



## ve2dict

it sounds like you assume i am atheist which im not. im not bothered much at all by what others think. it does perplex me at times how some people can be so blind atheist or otherwise.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> And you are are accurately described (same as This_Misrepresentation) as a Creation/ID'er.
> 
> Your belief in Genesis makes you a Cretionist.  Your belief in God being the spark, also makes you a follower of Intelligent Design (because as the definition of Intelligent Design, your God fullfills the description of a designing intelligence)



Yes, the Creator God of the Book of Genesis is a Spirit (John 4:24) and the Divine Supreme Intelligent Creator who designed and fashioned the universe into existence. A look at the sunsets, rainbows, majestic scenery of the mountains, order of the universe and existence of all life forms reveal that these things did not happen by mere chance.

*The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.* (Job 33:4) 

*The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.* (Psalm 19:1)


----------



## ve2dict

link = no good


----------



## This_person

It's interesting that you skipped over some significant parts of the answer:

The Sages explain, Midrash HaGadol Leviticus chapter 18 verse 10, that God states clearly, ibid., that incest with a granddaughter is forbidden and there is a clear legal, logical progression that leaves room for absolutely no doubt that a relationship involving a closer family relative is unquestionably forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin page 76, states that in the times when Biblical Law was applicable *the punishment was to put the father death for such actions*.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> And you are are accurately described (same as This_Misrepresentation) as a Creation/ID'er.
> 
> Your belief in Genesis makes you a Cretionist.  Your belief in God being the spark, also makes you a follower of Intelligent Design (because as the definition of Intelligent Design, your God fullfills the description of a designing intelligence)


Where in the definition of Intelligent Design is any God mentioned, any at all?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Starman,
> are you able to get to the page?  When i click the link to respond i get an error about connection reset by peer



Yes. Try this one:

Question from Nucklesack Withheld for privacy


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> It was addressed, maybe you should actually try reading for once instead of posting your interpretation of what was writen.
> 
> Not only did i post the relevant Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin section that was reference,  i also corrected the Rabi on how society at the time reacted to Father Daughter sex.


You discussed the Code of Hammurabi, and said the Talmud was the same.

Show me in the Talmud.

Show me how society at the time "reacted" to father/daughter sex that shows how there was no punishment, and was not prohibited, and/or that they would not have seen a daughter as a "close relation" to her father.

Other than that, you're just continuing to make stuff up.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> yeah i was afraid of that, i guess i'll have to create another question.
> 
> although i wonder why it was deleted?


It wasn't deleted.

The link continues to work fine.

Don't forget to explain your "unless mom and dad aren't sexually active, then it's okay" clause to the rabbi.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Reposted since This_Misrepresentation seems unable to actually read a post



Since you state being a creationist makes someone a ID person based on "the definition of Intelligent Design", I ask you again, (is this the fifth or sixth time you haven't answered?), where in the definition of Intelligent Design is a God mentioned?


----------



## This_person

Let me help you understand the difference:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. 

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10) 

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: The Institute for Creation Research.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools..
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002​


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Show me in the Talmud where it would.


114 TRACTATE SANHEDRIN M. IX. 

B. THOSE WHO ARE PUNISHABLE BY 
BURNING 

M. IX. la. These are punishable by burning : he 
who has criminal connexion with a woman and her 
daughter, 1 and a priest s daughter 2 (who has com 
mitted adultery). *The term " a woman and her 
daughter" includes a man s own daughter*, his 
daughter s or son s daughter, his wife s daughter, 
her daughter s or son s daughter, his mother-in- 
law, the mother of his father-in-law, and the mother 
of his mother-in-law.​

Next.....


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Where you fail is on this step.  While you can be an ID'er and not a creationist, (i've stated this numerous times) if you are a Creationist you are a IDer


Not true.  Just plain not true.

Nowhere does ID suggest a god, any god.  In fact, ID specifically denies genesis.

Your square peg does not fit in anyone's round hole





> Since you dont want to use the actual definition of the terms


I use the definition of the terms.  No God in ID, therefore Creationism doesn't fit.

Unless, like your "unless mom is dead", or "unless mom and dad are no longer sexually active", or, "Cain has a sister we never talked about before" verses that ONLY you can see, you see a god in the definition of ID, too?  


> Dont want to be labeled as either? tough shiat.


I'll be labeled as an IDer, that's fine for a scientific point of view.

I'll be labeled as a Creationist, that's fine from a religious point of view.

One does not make me the other, though.  No matter how hard you try.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Since you continue to be purposely obtuse and misrepresent my posts you'll stay on ignore, with no gauruntee that i'll respond.


I don't misrepresent your posts, I post them in full.

If you don't like that you've admitted 18:17 means no sex for a man with his daughter, or that your position repeatedly has been shown that you think there's a "unless mom and dad are not sexually active" clause that only you can see, too ####ing bad.  You've said it, now live with it.


----------



## This_person

In case you missed being quoted in full before:

Nucklesack said:


> You quoted them selectively, this is misrepresntation.  You posted a snipped of my statement and didnt post the parts that explained the stance.


No, I quoted the whole post, and linked to it.

Here, let me do the whole post again 

Nucklesack said:


> No i do not, i read it as *Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter*.  In Lots case she was dead he was safe.  *If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation*
> Not as defined in Lev 18:XX
> 
> Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there.  I never said threesome i stated *a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.*


As you can see, that's your _*whole*_ post, not snipped at all.

Does it fit with other posts, in context?  Well, let's look 

Nucklesack said:


> *In the case of Lot its covered since she was dead.* *In others the Father can not have sex with BOTH the mother and daughter*. seems pretty clear not sure why you struggle.
> 
> It does when YOU ask about todays versus Biblical times.
> 
> Unlesss you were purposly posing an idiotic question
> 
> Try to keep it straight.  18:6 just tells you incest is wicked, 18:?? then defines incest
> 
> *As defined by your bible Fathers and Daughter love is ok if mom isnt getting any.*


So, yes, it is your REPEATED assertion that there is some clause, somewhere, in the Bible that says mom and dad have to remain sexually active, or, mom has to still be alive for 18:17 to be applicable.  Since other verses specifically STATE the wife needs to be alive for the verse to be applicable, I'm wondering where it is you see that for THIS verse.  No one else can see it, but clearly you can.

I'm also looking for the verse that shows you that mom and dad need to remain sexually active for him to have ever been with her.  What is your biblical reference for this timeframe of how often they need to be together for a daughter to continue to be a close relation.

I mean, you're very clear that Lot would have been "in violation" if he were still active with his wife, so I'm looking for where the verse is that shows the "if he is still active with his wife" part.  I mean, you're not just INTERPRETTING (poorly, mind you) that part, are you?

Then, you go on to talk about the worth of women,  and your interpretations of that.  Of course, you haven't mentioned that again since I've shown you a man's daughter's daughter is his close relation per 18:10.  Because, even your twisted views can't come up with an excuse for how the daughter's daughter is his close relation, but the daughter isn't and reconcile that with the invalidated "worth of women" argument.  ​


----------



## Starman3000m

This_person said:


> 114 TRACTATE SANHEDRIN M. IX.
> 
> B. THOSE WHO ARE PUNISHABLE BY
> BURNING
> 
> M. IX. la. These are punishable by burning : he
> who has criminal connexion with a woman and her
> daughter, 1 and a priest s daughter 2 (who has com
> mitted adultery). *The term " a woman and her
> daughter" includes a man s own daughter*, his
> daughter s or son s daughter, his wife s daughter,
> her daughter s or son s daughter, his mother-in-
> law, the mother of his father-in-law, and the mother
> of his mother-in-law.​
> 
> Next.....



Here's the "missing link" for Nucklesack to see:

Tractate Sanhedrin: IV. Offenders Liable to Capital Punishment: B. Those Who Are Punishable By Burning


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Was this the part that This_Misrepresentation missed?
> 
> 
> While this is a particular link is a discussion about Lev20, the language is exactly the same as Leviticus 18:17, it is not a punishment for a man from having sex with is own daughter.  It is a prohibition from incestual polygamy.
> 
> Men could have multiple wives and partners.  Per the verses, it was Biblicaly tolerant for a man to have sex with a woman (any) and his own daughter. A man can have sex with a woman and any combination of other women, as long as they are not her own daughter nor her Sister. While there is a qualifier listed (about Her Daughter, in this text, meaning his Daughter) it is still talking about having sexual relations with both a Mother and Her daughter (his own).  If the woman is not the mother of the daughter (say a step mother) the man was not in violation.



OK - let's see how the Rabbi responds to your follow-up when you write to him tomorrow.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> no problemo wish his board was as fast to reply as ours



You probably gave the Rabbi a headache already! Wait 'til he reads your rebuttal.

BTW: Perhaps you should let him know you are a "Christ-punching Atheist". 
We don't want him thinking that you're some misguided member of the Synagogue or an ex-member of the Branch Davidian cult from Waco, TX


----------



## Im_Me

Nucklesack said:


> Was this the part that This_Misrepresentation missed?
> 
> 
> While this is a particular link is a discussion about Lev20, the language is exactly the same as Leviticus 18:17, it is not a punishment for a man from having sex with is own daughter.  It is a prohibition from incestual polygamy.
> 
> Men could have multiple wives and partners.  Per the verses, it was Biblicaly tolerant for a man to have sex with a woman (any) and his own daughter. A man can have sex with a woman and any combination of other women, as long as they are not her own daughter nor her Sister. While there is a qualifier listed (about Her Daughter, in this text, meaning his Daughter) it is still talking about having sexual relations with both a Mother and Her daughter (his own).  If the woman is not the mother of the daughter (say a step mother) the man was not in violation.



I hate to get in to this because I think this dog has been dead a while (and it's beyond stinking), but here goes.....


1:  In the large text is I guess the crux of your arguement.  So.. If you have a daughter you would have had to have sex with her mother. She is therefore obviously off limits.  There is no implied "statute of limitations" in this prohibition.  It reasonably means that the daughter of your previous partner (including your daughter's mother)  is off limits- forever.  

2:  Is there a point to this point or are you just happy to get so many people talking about this completely icky topic for days on end?  If you need to see in writing that this is wrong, then let me spell it out (again)....It is wrong...Very very wrong.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Men could have multiple wives and partners.  Per the verses, it was Biblicaly tolerant for a man to have sex with a woman (any) and his own daughter. A man can have sex with a woman and any combination of other women, as long as they are not her own daughter nor her Sister. While there is a qualifier listed (about Her Daughter, in this text, meaning his Daughter) it is still talking about having sexual relations with both a Mother and Her daughter (his own).


What part of The term " a woman and her daughter" includes a man's own daughter​don't you get?





> If the woman is not the mother of the daughter (say a step mother) the man was not in violation.


True, he's not inviolation of sleeping with his wife if his wife is his daughter's step mother.

However, since it prohibits sleeping with a woman and her daugher (*The term " a woman and her daughter" includes a man's own daughter*), he would ALWAYS be in violation of 18:6 and 18:17 by sleeping with a "close relation", "a man's own daughter".


----------



## Im_Me

...Never mind...My computer (or I) was losing it before..TIA


----------



## This_person

Starman3000m said:


> OK - let's see how the Rabbi responds to your follow-up when you write to him tomorrow.


I haven't seen any followup question for the rabbi to answer yet, have you?

Seems ol' Nuck couldn't handle defeat on two forums at once on the same subject, so he just went away for awhile.


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> I haven't seen any followup question for the rabbi to answer yet, have you?
> 
> Seems ol' Nuck couldn't handle defeat on two forums at once on the same subject, so he just went away for awhile.



Seems ol' Nuck has had all of his posts removed from this forum.  

Seems the description of this forum :
Discuss spirituality and religion in this forum​Is bullshiat


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Seems ol' Nuck has had all of his posts removed from this forum.
> 
> Seems the description of this forum :
> Discuss spirituality and religion in this forum​Is bullshiat


"all"?  

Can I show you that at least a few hundred are still here?


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> I haven't seen any followup question for the rabbi to answer yet, have you?
> 
> Seems ol' Nuck couldn't handle defeat on two forums at once on the same subject, so he just went away for awhile.



Maybe you should have tried to debate the topic using the actual verses (and not your alternative ... err potential version) instead of having to go to Board Mommy and complain the big bully beat you with your own scripture?


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> "all"?
> 
> Can I show you that at least a few hundred are still here?



Nice try, you know what was meant, any new topics and any posts from at least the last week have been removed.

But then i guess we cant expect honesty from you.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Maybe you should have tried to debate the topic using the actual verses (and not your alternative ... err potential version) instead of having to go to Board Mommy and complain the big bully beat you with your own scripture?


I never asked for a single thing of yours be removed or changed.

I never asked ANYTHING about you, ever.

I never went to the Board Mommy regarding you, or anything about you, ever.

However, I did use scripture to debate scripture with you.  18:6 is very clear, as is 18:17, as was the rabbi's response to you.

Still waiting for your "as long as mom's not getting any" scriptural reference.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Nice try, you know what was meant, any new topics and any posts from at least the last week have been removed.
> 
> But then i guess we cant expect honesty from you.


Words mean something.  I know they don't to you, but they do to the rest of us.


I feel bad for you that you've had posts removed.  I had nothing to do with that.  And, I don't mean "nothing" like you mean "all" (inaccurately), I mean "nothing" as in "nothing".


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> I never asked for a single thing of yours be removed or changed.
> 
> I never asked ANYTHING about you, ever.
> 
> I never went to the Board Mommy regarding you, or anything about you, ever.
> 
> However, I did use scripture to debate scripture with you.  18:6 is very clear, as is 18:17, as was the rabbi's response to you.
> 
> Still waiting for your "as long as mom's not getting any" scriptural reference.



Tell ya what, go back to the Board Mommy and get my posts put back, then we can continue the discussion


----------



## Im_Me

Nucklesack said:


> Nice try, you know what was meant, any new topics and any posts from at least the last week have been removed.
> 
> But then i guess we cant expect honesty from you.



Just want to go on record that I didn't go to the Board Mommy either...even though I went on record as saying I thought the topic was icky.


Since I don't even know how to go to the Board Mommy... I guess I'll just have to keep on ignoring what I don't want to see.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Tell ya what, go back to the Board Mommy and get my posts put back, then we can continue the discussion



I can't "go back" to her if I never went to her in the first place.

I have zero control over whether your posts are here or not, and never asked for any posts to be moved or removed.  I believe in everyone being able to post whatever they want to post.  Other than Fred, I put no one on ignore, because that's just stupid - everyone has a value that should be weighed and considered.

You can think it was me if that makes you feel better, but I _*still*_ did nothing regarding your posts.


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> I can't "go back" to her if I never went to her in the first place.
> 
> I have zero control over whether your posts are here or not, and never asked for any posts to be moved or removed.  I believe in everyone being able to post whatever they want to post.  Other than Fred, I put no one on ignore, because that's just stupid - everyone has a value that should be weighed and considered.
> 
> You can think it was me if that makes you feel better, but I _*still*_ did nothing regarding your posts.



:gotcha:


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> :gotcha:


Perhaps you're more offensive than you know?

All I can do is hope that Vrai answers you, so that you can then apologize to me for accusing me with no justification.


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> Perhaps you're more offensive than you know?
> 
> All I can do is hope that Vrai answers you, so that you can then apologize to me for accusing me with no justification.



Keep your hope, then you'll have something more substantial than your understanding of the Bible you claim you follow.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Keep your hope, then you'll have something more substantial than your understanding of the Bible you claim you follow.


I should be surprised that, even when you're proven wrong, you won't admit you're wrong.  I'm not.


----------



## Nucklesack

This_person said:


> I should be surprised that, even when you're proven wrong, you won't admit you're wrong.  I'm not.


I'm not surprised that your satisfied with having only your side of the debate represented in this discussion.

But then misrepresentation has been your forte.


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> I'm not surprised that your satisfied with having only your side of the debate represented in this discussion.


  Do you _read_ my posts?  


> But then misrepresentation has been your forte.


Where, ever, have I misrepresented your posts?


----------



## This_person

This_person said:


> Where, ever, have I misrepresented your posts?


Asked repeatedly, yet never answered honestly.


----------



## Im_Me

Nucklesack said:


> I'm not surprised that your satisfied with having only your side of the debate represented in this discussion.
> 
> But then misrepresentation has been your forte.





This_person said:


> Do you _read_ my posts?  Where, ever, have I misrepresented your posts?



Were you guys brothers in a former life?...You fight just like my kids...incessantly.


----------



## This_person

Im_Me said:


> Were you guys brothers in a former life?...You fight just like my kids...incessantly.


No, he just seems to believe that when people stop arguing with him, he's made his point and he's right.

I hate to let someone be so wrong and think they're right, and infect others with their inaccurate stories.

It's one thing to believe legitimately in different interpretations of verses; it's another thing altogether to be blatently stupid about them.


----------



## Nonno

This_person said:


> I hate to let someone be so wrong and think they're right, and infect others with their inaccurate stories.



White Knight to the rescue!


----------



## Nucklesack

Nonno said:


> White Knight to the rescue!



This coming from the guy who admits he uses Alternative..... Err potential versions of the Bible to justify his fantasies and delusions.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> This coming from the guy who admits he uses Alternative..... Err potential versions of the Bible to justify his fantasies and delusions.



Back to the answer to the original question of this thread:
*Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.*


----------



## Nucklesack

Starman3000m said:


> Back to the answer to the original question of this thread:
> *Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.*



And amazingly enough, the topic of this thread still has nothing to do with religion.

So why is it posted here?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> And amazingly enough, the topic of this thread still has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> So why is it posted here?



Is there a Forum for Atheism? Should be.


----------



## Nucklesack

Starman3000m said:


> Is there a Forum for Atheism? Should be.



Maybe so, but thankfully there is a forum that Atheists and Theists can discuss spirituality and religion.

This one.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Maybe so, but thankfully there is a forum that Atheists and Theists can discuss spirituality and religion.
> 
> This one.



I really believe Atheists should have their own Forum and then we would see how many Atheists agree with each others philosophy. I'd be happy to visit there just as you visit here! LOL


----------



## Nucklesack

Starman3000m said:


> I really believe Atheists should have their own Forum and then we would see how many Atheists agree with each others philosophy. I'd be happy to visit there just as you visit here! LOL



I am positive there is as much division in Atheism as there is in Christianity. 

And, not speaking for the other Christ punchers but, you'd be welcome to come visit and discuss the strengths of your belief verses the weakness of our unbelief.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> I am positive there is as much division in Atheism as there is in Christianity.



That's why I believe that *There Is Only One Truth. *



> And, not speaking for the other Christ punchers but, you'd be welcome to come visit and discuss the strengths of your belief verses the weakness of our unbelief.



Thanks. I have many friends who disagree with my faith (Atheists as well as other religions) Again: *There Is Only One Truth.*

Give me a site - I'd be happy to crash the party! LOL


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> This coming from the guy who admits he uses Alternative..... Err potential versions of the Bible to justify his fantasies and delusions.


So, I post actual verses, and you post conditions that don't exist (did you find the "as long as mom and dad are still sexually active" clause yet? ), and you think _*I*_ have fantasies and delusions?


----------

